A Necessary Evil: A History of American Distrust of Government

This is a fantastic book. Wills does a great job in discussing the general theories of the different steps people take when they disagree with government policy or action, with a number of pertinent examples. Wills is excellent when discussing the beliefs of the American revolutionaries (which, he reminds us, were not revolting but seceding), and how those beliefs led to the Articles of Confederation and Constitution. Reading this book will enlighten the reader to the archetypal forms of actions taken when people disagree with the government -- information, and even guidelines, that are highly relevant today. He has particularly interesting insights on Thoreau, Martin Luther King Jr., and the Second Amendment.Yet at times Wills goes overboard in proving several of his viewpoints. A major theme of the book is that Jackson, Webster and Lincoln were not only militarily, but logically and Constitutionally, correct in asserting that the South was wrong to secede. Wills claims that the South's argument for secession was limited to an assertion of the southern states' rights under their states' prior sovereignty. He then asserts that since the Union preceded the states, that the states were never sovereign. Wills is right that the Constitution gives superior authority to the federal government, but he omits that colonies of identical name and geography to the succeeding states were there long before the Union, and those colonies formed states which confederated into Articles of Confederation government. Although the Constitution is written in the name of "We the People," it was drafted by state delegations to a convention of the states, and ratified by the states, which comprised the resulting Union. These states' sovereignties is subsumed into the union, which was named the United States -- both the union and the states present.The South's hypocrisy (in claiming local rights while silencing local dissent), and the execrable reason for its secession (preserving slavery), do not by themselves refute the argument that the South had grounds to secede. What if, alternatively, the six New England states got disgusted with the pro-slavery US and seceded to form a new slave-free country for the best of motives? Would six freedom-loving states choosing to leave a slave-holding country be constitutionally justifiable? If the Union had just let the South peaceably go, arguably there would have been trade between the US and Confederacy, and perhaps the Confederacy's internal inconsistencies would have caused it to implode, and/or do away with slavery on its own within a few decades. This probably would have eliminated the seething and often violent resentment of the post-bellum South to the North, and possibly have led to a peaceable re-union. Would letting the South go have set such a terrible precedent, since it's unlikely an issue as divisive as slavery would arise and cause later secessions?While Wills is a great writer and makes many compelli

Mr. Wills is a great talent, for not only is he a scholar he has the rare gift of making what is often tedious to read interesting, and transform what is often made overly complex into the concepts as originally envisioned. This is not meant to suggest this book is an easy read if given the time it deserves, rather that the more time you invest the more rewarded and more knowledgeable you will be.I found the other reviews interesting as I read them before I read the book. As is evident individuals have opinions that reside at such opposite poles I paused at times wondering if I had the same book. The extreme responses to this book, from the left to right illustrate much of what Mr. Wills discusses in this book. When he examines the documents that lead to the final instruments of law that guide this Country's Government, whether during the drafting or after they were written, the interpretation was often as varied as the number of readers.The book is segmented into 9 areas of discussion. While none of the headings seem new, the manner with which he illustrates the issues are fresh, clever, and by using examples to the near or very near present, he makes the theories more accessible, and more interesting.History has a tendency to get both romanticized and categorized so the issues appear clear, very little gray, lots of black and white. The book contains 2 sections on Myths, Revolutionary and Constitutional. They are not revisionist tirades liberal or conservative in their rendering. They are meticulously argued and notated positions that other learned individuals may take issue with, but they are some of the best I have read.History is complex when you wish to understand the roles and differences between; Nullifiers, Seceders, Insurrectionists, Vigilantes, Withdrawers, and Disobeyers, and the roles they played or refused to play that shaped our Country. What the Author does so well is to explain insurrection with examples from Daniel Shays to Timothy McVeigh, Vigilantes from the Regulators of 18th century South Carolina to the bombing of Abortion Clinics today.In addition Henry David Thoreau, Henry L. Mencken, Albert Jay Nock, and Henry Adams all make appearances. And he reaches from Brook Farm to the Hippie Communes of the 1960's when explaining the place of Withdrawers in our History.Mr. Wills has a gift for brilliant reasoning and thought, together with the discipline to buttress his positions with fact and historical notation. He is the type of scholar that is a pleasure to read if only to appreciate his thought process whether you agree with him or not.Don't deny yourself this reading experience.

Before writing this review, but after reading the book, I waded through all the other readers' reviews. What struck me was the level of antipathy this book had raised in some of the reviewers. I never expected to find absolute truth or correctness of thought as I read it. This man has his prejudices and the book has its errors, as do all authors and books. I'm reminded of the storm of criticisms that met Paul Johnson's recent history of America. However, I revelled in Mr. Wills' capacity to express himself so clearly, his plethora of new (for me)important things to ponder, and his excellent narrative and descriptive skills. I'm glad I came upon this book and will now get ahold of some of his earlier works.

This book is not perfect. For example, it seemes to me that Wills misunderstands Thoreau's use of irony, and I'm not sure the causal link between Reagan and abortion clinic bombings is as strong as Wills suggests. But most of the customers who have reviewed this book either 1) haven't really read all the book or 2) are hopelessly close minded. That said, I'll just add that Wills's latest book is a masterful analysis of the very fiber of American society. I don't know anyone who LOVES the government, but Wills shows why it is essential to our well-being, how it is a vital force in making this great country what it is. Few people know more about the Constitution than Wills, but he is not (as some readers suggest) a mere liberal pedant. Sometimes the truth hurts.

Wills has written some great books: "Nixon Agonistes" was a revelation and his book on Reagan was a wonderful analysis of the relationship between a president and the myths the American people wanted to be true. This book has much in common with the earlier ones, in that there is the most careful examination of what actually went on in the past connected to themes that are of pressing importance today. So, for example, there is an impressive analysis of the "Federalist Papers" [especially Madison's contributions] interlaced with an evaluation of the misreadings over time that have now been embraced so willingly by our contemporaries. The writing is clear, the endnotes useful, and the total product an impressive one, in terms both of helping us understand our fascinating past and giving some order to the confusion of our current political climate.