the letter from birmingham jail essay

A Summary and Analysis of Martin Luther King’s ‘Letter from Birmingham Jail’

By Dr Oliver Tearle (Loughborough University)

‘Letter from Birmingham Jail’ is Martin Luther King’s most famous written text, and rivals his most celebrated speech, ‘ I Have a Dream ’, for its political importance and rhetorical power.

King wrote this open letter in April 1963 while he was imprisoned in the city jail in Birmingham, Alabama. When he read a statement issued in the newspaper by eight of his fellow clergymen, King began to compose his response, initially writing it in the margins of the newspaper article itself.

In ‘Letter from Birmingham Jail’, King answers some of the criticisms he had received from the clergymen in their statement, and makes the case for nonviolent action to bring about an end to racial segregation in the South. You can read the letter in full here if you would like to read King’s words before reading on to our summary of his argument, and analysis of the letter’s meaning and significance.

‘Letter from Birmingham Jail’: summary

The letter is dated 16 April 1963. King begins by addressing his ‘fellow clergymen’ who wrote the statement published in the newspaper. In this statement, they had criticised King’s political activities ‘unwise and untimely’. King announces that he will respond to their criticisms because he believes they are ‘men of genuine good will’.

King outlines why he is in Birmingham: as president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, he was invited by an affiliate group in Birmingham to engage in a non-violent direct-action program: he accepted. When the time came, he honoured his promise and came to Birmingham to support the action.

But there is a bigger reason for his travelling to Birmingham: because injustice is found there, and, in a famous line, King asserts: ‘Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.’ The kind of direction action King and others have engaged in around Birmingham is a last resort because negotiations have broken down and promises have been broken.

When there is no alternative, direct action – such as sit-ins and marches – can create what King calls a ‘tension’ which will mean that a community which previously refused to negotiate will be forced to come to the negotiating table. King likens this to the ‘tension’ in the individual human mind which Socrates, the great classical philosopher, fostered through his teachings.

Next, King addresses the accusation that the action he and others are taking in Birmingham is ‘untimely’. King points out that the newly elected mayor of the city, like the previous incumbent, is in favour of racial segregation and thus wishes to preserve the political status quo so far as race is concerned. As King observes, privileged people seldom give up their privileges voluntarily: hence the need for nonviolent pressure.

King now turns to the question of law-breaking. How can he and others justify breaking the law? He quotes St. Augustine, who said that ‘an unjust law is no law at all.’ A just law uplifts human personality and is consistent with the moral law and God’s law. An unjust law degrades human personality and contradicts the moral law (and God’s law). Because segregation encourages one group of people to view themselves as superior to another group, it is unjust.

He also asserts that he believes the greatest stumbling-block to progress is not the far-right white supremacist but the ‘white moderate’ who are wedded to the idea of ‘order’ in the belief that order is inherently right. King points out both in the Bible (the story of Shadrach and the fiery furnace ) and in America’s own colonial history (the Boston Tea Party ) people have practised a form of ‘civil disobedience’, breaking one set of laws because a higher law was at stake.

King addresses the objection that his actions, whilst nonviolent themselves, may encourage others to commit violence in his name. He rejects this argument, pointing out that this kind of logic (if such it can be called) can be extended to all sorts of scenarios. Do we blame a man who is robbed because his possession of wealth led the robber to steal from him?

The next criticism which King addresses is the notion that he is an extremist. He contrasts his nonviolent approach with that of other African-American movements in the US, namely the black nationalist movements which view the white man as the devil. King points out that he has tried to steer a path between extremists on either side, but he is still labelled an ‘extremist’.

He decides to own the label, and points out that Jesus could be regarded as an ‘extremist’ because, out of step with the worldview of his time, he championed love of one’s enemies.

Other religious figures, as well as American political figures such as Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson, might be called ‘extremists’ for their unorthodox views (for their time). Jefferson, for example, was considered an extremist for arguing, in the opening words to the Declaration of Independence, that all men are created equal. ‘Extremism’ doesn’t have to mean one is a violent revolutionary: it can simply denote extreme views that one holds.

King expresses his disappointment with the white church for failing to stand with him and other nonviolent activists campaigning for an end to racial segregation. People in the church have made a variety of excuses for not supporting racial integration.

The early Christian church was much more prepared to fight for what it believed to be right, but it has grown weak and complacent. Rather than being disturbers of the peace, many Christians are now upholders of the status quo.

Martin Luther King concludes his letter by arguing that he and his fellow civil rights activists will achieve their freedom, because the goal of America as a nation has always been freedom, going back to the founding of the United States almost two centuries earlier. He provides several examples of the quiet courage shown by those who had engaged in nonviolent protest in the South.

‘Letter from Birmingham Jail’: analysis

Martin Luther King’s open letter written from Birmingham Jail is one of the most famous open letters in the world. It is also a well-known defence of the notion of civil disobedience, or refusing to obey laws which are immoral or unjust, often through peaceful protest and collective action.

King answers each of the clergymen’s objections in turn, laying out his argument in calm, rational, but rhetorically brilliant prose. The emphasis throughout is non nonviolent action, or peaceful protest, which King favours rather than violent acts such as rioting (which, he points out, will alienate many Americans who might otherwise support the cause for racial integration).

In this, Martin Luther King was greatly influenced by the example of Mahatma Gandhi , who had led the Indian struggle for independence earlier in the twentieth century, advocating for nonviolent resistance to British rule in India. Another inspiration for King was Henry David Thoreau, whose 1849 essay ‘ Civil Disobedience ’ called for ordinary citizens to refuse to obey laws which they consider unjust.

This question of what is a ‘just’ law and what is an ‘unjust’ law is central to King’s defence of his political approach as laid out in the letter from Birmingham Jail. He points out that everything Hitler did in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s was ‘legal’, because the Nazis changed the laws to suit their ideology and political aims. But this does not mean that what they did was moral : quite the opposite.

Similarly, it would have been ‘illegal’ to come to the aid of a Jew in Nazi Germany, but King states that he would have done so, even though, by helping and comforting a Jewish person, he would have been breaking the law. So instead of the view that ‘law’ and ‘justice’ are synonymous, ‘Letter from Birmingham Jail’ is a powerful argument for obeying a higher moral law rather than manmade laws which suit those in power.

But ‘Letter from Birmingham Jail’ is also notable for the thoughtful and often surprising things King does with his detractors’ arguments. For instance, where we might expect him to object to being called an ‘extremist’, he embraces the label, observing that some of the most pious and peaceful figures in history have been ‘extremists’ of one kind of another. But they have called for extreme love, justice, and tolerance, rather than extreme hate, division, or violence.

Similarly, King identifies white moderates as being more dangerous to progress than white nationalists, because they believe in ‘order’ rather than ‘justice’ and thus they can sound rational and sympathetic even as they stand in the way of racial integration and civil rights. As with the ‘extremist’ label, King’s position here may take us by surprise, but he backs up his argument carefully and provides clear reasons for his stance.

There are two main frames of reference in the letter. One is Christian examples: Jesus, St. Paul, and Amos, the Old Testament prophet , are all mentioned, with King drawing parallels between their actions and those of the civil rights activists participating in direct action.

The other is examples from American history: Abraham Lincoln (who issued the Emancipation Proclamation during the American Civil War, a century before King was writing) and Thomas Jefferson (who drafted the words to the Declaration of Independence, including the statement that all men are created equal).

Both Christianity and America have personal significance for King, who was a reverend as well as a political campaigner and activist. But these frames of reference also establish a common ground between both him and the clergymen he addresses, and, more widely, with many other Americans who will read the open letter.

Discover more from Interesting Literature

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Type your email…

Continue reading

"Letter from Birmingham Jail"

April 16, 1963

As the events of the  Birmingham Campaign  intensified on the city’s streets, Martin Luther King, Jr., composed a letter from his prison cell in Birmingham in response to local religious leaders’ criticisms of the campaign: “Never before have I written so long a letter. I’m afraid it is much too long to take your precious time. I can assure you that it would have been much shorter if I had been writing from a comfortable desk, but what else can one do when he is alone in a narrow jail cell, other than write long letters, think long thoughts and pray long prayers?” (King,  Why , 94–95).

King’s 12 April 1963 arrest for violating Alabama’s law against mass public demonstrations took place just over a week after the campaign’s commencement. In an effort to revive the campaign, King and Ralph  Abernathy   had donned work clothes and marched from Sixth Avenue Baptist Church into a waiting police wagon. The day of his arrest, eight Birmingham clergy members wrote a criticism of the campaign that was published in the  Birmingham News , calling its direct action strategy “unwise and untimely” and appealing “to both our white and Negro citizenry to observe the principles of law and order and common sense” (“White Clergymen Urge”).

Following the initial circulation of King’s letter in Birmingham as a mimeographed copy, it was published in a variety of formats: as a pamphlet distributed by the  American Friends Service Committee  and as an article in periodicals such as  Christian Century ,  Christianity and Crisis , the  New York Post , and  Ebony  magazine. The first half of the letter was introduced into testimony before Congress by Representative William Fitts Ryan (D–NY) and published in the  Congressional Record . One year later, King revised the letter and presented it as a chapter in his 1964 memoir of the Birmingham Campaign,  Why We Can’t Wait , a book modeled after the basic themes set out in “Letter from Birmingham Jail.”

In  Why We Can’t Wait , King recalled in an author’s note accompanying the letter’s republication how the letter was written. It was begun on pieces of newspaper, continued on bits of paper supplied by a black trustee, and finished on paper pads left by King’s attorneys. After countering the charge that he was an “outside agitator” in the body of the letter, King sought to explain the value of a “nonviolent campaign” and its “four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self-purification; and direct action” (King,  Why , 79). He went on to explain that the purpose of direct action was to create a crisis situation out of which negotiation could emerge.

The body of King’s letter called into question the clergy’s charge of “impatience” on the part of the African American community and of the “extreme” level of the campaign’s actions (“White Clergymen Urge”). “For years now, I have heard the word ‘Wait!’” King wrote. “This ‘Wait’ has almost always meant ‘Never’” (King,  Why , 83). He articulated the resentment felt “when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of ‘nobodiness’—then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait” (King,  Why , 84). King justified the tactic of civil disobedience by stating that, just as the Bible’s Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refused to obey Nebuchadnezzar’s unjust laws and colonists staged the Boston Tea Party, he refused to submit to laws and injunctions that were employed to uphold segregation and deny citizens their rights to peacefully assemble and protest.

King also decried the inaction of white moderates such as the clergymen, charging that human progress “comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co-workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation” (King,  Why , 89). He prided himself as being among “extremists” such as Jesus, the prophet Amos, the apostle Paul, Martin Luther, and Abraham Lincoln, and observed that the country as a whole and the South in particular stood in need of creative men of extreme action. In closing, he hoped to meet the eight fellow clergymen who authored the first letter.

Garrow,  Bearing the Cross , 1986.

King, “A Letter from Birmingham Jail,”  Ebony  (August 1963): 23–32.

King, “From the Birmingham Jail,”  Christianity and Crisis  23 (27 May 1963): 89–91.

King, “From the Birmingham Jail,”  Christian Century  80 (12 June 1963): 767–773.

King, “Letter from Birmingham City Jail” (Philadelphia: American Friends Service Committee, May 1963).

King, “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” in  Why We Can’t Wait , 1964.

Reverend Martin Luther King Writes from Birmingham City Jail—Part I , 88th Cong., 1st sess.,  Congressional Record  (11 July 1963): A 4366–4368.

“White Clergymen Urge Local Negroes to Withdraw from Demonstrations,”  Birmingham News , 13 April 1963.

Letter from Birmingham Jail

Martin luther king, jr., everything you need for every book you read..

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

Behind Martin Luther King’s Searing ‘Letter from Birmingham Jail’

By: Barbara Maranzani

Updated: August 31, 2018 | Original: April 16, 2013

On April 12,  1963, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and nearly 50 other protestors and civil rights leaders were arrested after leading a Good Friday demonstration as part of the Birmingham Campaign , designed to bring national attention to the brutal, racist treatment suffered by blacks in one of the most segregated cities in America—Birmingham, Alabama. For months, an organized boycott of the city’s white-owned businesses had failed to achieve any substantive results, leaving King and others convinced they had no other options but more direct actions, ignoring a recently passed ordinance that prohibited public gathering without an official permit. 

For King, this arrest—his 13th—would become one of the most important of his career. Thrown into solitary confinement, King was initially denied access to his lawyers or allowed to contact his wife, until President John F. Kennedy was urged to intervene on his behalf. As previously agreed upon, King was not immediately bailed out of jail by his supporters, having instead agreed to a longer stay in jail to draw additional attention to the plight of black Americans.

Shortly after King’s arrest, a friend smuggled in a copy of an April 12 Birmingham newspaper which included an open letter, written by eight local Christian and Jewish religious leaders, which criticized both the demonstrations and King himself, whom they considered an outside agitator. Isolated in his cell, King began working on a response. Without notes or research materials, King drafted an impassioned defense of his use of nonviolent, but direct, actions. 

READ MORE: 10 Things You May Not Know About Martin Luther King Jr.

Over the course of the letter’s 7,000 words, he turned the criticism back upon both the nation’s religious leaders and more moderate-minded white Americans, castigating them for sitting passively on the sidelines while King and others risked everything agitating for change. King drew inspiration for his words from a long line of religious and political philosophers, quoting everyone from St. Augustine and Socrates to Thomas Jefferson and then-Chief Justice of the United States Earl Warren , who had overseen the Supreme Court’s landmark civil rights ruling in Brown v. Board of Education . 

For those, including the Birmingham religious leaders, who urged caution and remained convinced that time would solve the country’s racial issues, King reminded them of Warren’s own words on the need for desegregation, “justice too long delayed is justice denied.” And for those who thought the Atlanta-based King had no right to interfere with issues in Alabama, King argued, in one of his most famous phrases, that he could not sit “idly by in Atlanta” because “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Without writing papers, King initially began by jotting down notes in the margin of the newspaper itself, before writing out portions of the work on scraps of paper he gave his attorneys—allowing a King ally, Wyatt Walker, to begin compiling the letter, which eventually ran to 21 double-spaced, typed pages. Curiously, King never sent a copy to any of the eight Birmingham clergy to whom he had “responded,” leaving many to believe that he had intended it to have a much broader, national, audience all along.

King was finally released from jail on April 20, four days after penning the letter. Despite the harsh treatment he and his fellow protestors had received, King continued his work in Birmingham. Just two weeks later, more than 1,000 schoolchildren took part in the famed “Children’s Crusade,” skipping school to march through the city streets advocating for integration and racial equality. Birmingham’s Commissioner of Public Safety Eugene “Bull” Connor, who King had repeatedly criticized in his letter for his harsh treatment, ordered fire hoses and police dogs to be turned on the young protestors; more than 600 of them were jailed on the first day alone. The brutal and cruel police tactics on display in Alabama were broadcast on televisions around the world, horrifying many Americans. 

READ MORE: 8 Works of Literature Written from Prison

With Birmingham in chaos and businesses shuttered, local officials were forced to meet with King and agree to some, but not all, of his demands. On June 11, with the horrific events in Birmingham still seared on the American consciousness, and following Governor George Wallace’s refusal to integrate the University of Alabama until the arrival of the U.S. National Guard, President Kennedy addressed the nation, announcing his plans to present sweeping civil rights legislation to the U.S. Congress. Kennedy’s announcement, however, did little to quell the unrest in Birmingham and on September 15, 1963, a Ku Klux Klan bombing at the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church left four young African American girls dead.

By this time, King’s Letter from Birmingham Jail had begun to appear in publications across the country. Months earlier, Harvey Shapiro, an editor at The New York Times , had urged King to use his frequent jailing as an opportunity to write a longer defense of his use of nonviolent tactics, and though King did so, The New York Times chose not to publish it. Others did, including The Atlantic Monthly and The Christian Century , one of the most prominent Protestant magazines in the nation. In the weeks leading up to the March on Washington, King’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference used the letter as part of its fundraising efforts, and King himself used it as a basis for a book, Why We Can’t Wait , which looked back upon the successes and failures of the Birmingham Campaign. The book was released in July 1964, the same month President Lyndon Johnson signed the landmark Civil Rights Act into law.

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

Letter from Birmingham Jail

By dr. martin luther king, jr..

16 April, 1963

While confined here in the Birmingham city jail, I came across your recent statement calling my present activities “unwise and untimely.” Seldom do I pause to answer criticism of my work and ideas. If I sought to answer all the criticisms that cross my desk, my secretaries would have little time for anything other than such correspondence in the course of the day, and I would have no time for constructive work. But since I feel that you are men of genuine good will and that your criticisms are sincerely set forth, I want to try to answer your statement in what I hope will be patient and reasonable terms.

I think I should indicate why I am here in Birmingham, since you have been influenced by the view which argues against “outsiders coming in.” I have the honor of serving as president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, an organization operating in every southern state, with headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia. We have some eighty five affiliated organizations across the South, and one of them is the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights. Frequently we share staff, educational and financial resources with our affiliates. Several months ago the affiliate here in Birmingham asked us to be on call to engage in a nonviolent direct action program if such were deemed necessary. We readily consented, and when the hour came we lived up to our promise. So I, along with several members of my staff, am here because I was invited here. I am here because I have organizational ties here.

But more basically, I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried their “thus saith the Lord” far beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco Roman world, so am I compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid.

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere

Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial “outside agitator” idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.

You deplore the demonstrations taking place in Birmingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations. I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. It is unfortunate that demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham, but it is even more unfortunate that the city’s white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative.

In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self purification; and direct action. We have gone through all these steps in Birmingham. There can be no gainsaying the fact that racial injustice engulfs this community. Birmingham is probably the most thoroughly segregated city in the United States. Its ugly record of brutality is widely known. Negroes have experienced grossly unjust treatment in the courts. There have been more unsolved bombings of Negro homes and churches in Birmingham than in any other city in the nation. These are the hard, brutal facts of the case. On the basis of these conditions, Negro leaders sought to negotiate with the city fathers. But the latter consistently refused to engage in good faith negotiation.

Then, last September, came the opportunity to talk with leaders of Birmingham’s economic community. In the course of the negotiations, certain promises were made by the merchants—for example, to remove the stores’ humiliating racial signs. On the basis of these promises, the Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth and the leaders of the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights agreed to a moratorium on all demonstrations. As the weeks and months went by, we realized that we were the victims of a broken promise. A few signs, briefly removed, returned; the others remained.

As in so many past experiences, our hopes had been blasted, and the shadow of deep disappointment settled upon us. We had no alternative except to prepare for direct action, whereby we would present our very bodies as a means of laying our case before the conscience of the local and the national community. Mindful of the difficulties involved, we decided to undertake a process of self purification. We began a series of workshops on nonviolence, and we repeatedly asked ourselves: “Are you able to accept blows without retaliating?” “Are you able to endure the ordeal of jail?” We decided to schedule our direct action program for the Easter season, realizing that except for Christmas, this is the main shopping period of the year. Knowing that a strong economic-withdrawal program would be the by product of direct action, we felt that this would be the best time to bring pressure to bear on the merchants for the needed change.

Then it occurred to us that Birmingham’s mayoral election was coming up in March, and we speedily decided to postpone action until after election day. When we discovered that the Commissioner of Public Safety, Eugene “Bull” Connor, had piled up enough votes to be in the run off, we decided again to postpone action until the day after the run off so that the demonstrations could not be used to cloud the issues. Like many others, we waited to see Mr. Connor defeated, and to this end we endured postponement after postponement. Having aided in this community need, we felt that our direct action program could be delayed no longer.

You may well ask: “Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn’t negotiation a better path?” You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word “tension.” I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.

The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue.

One of the basic points in your statement is that the action that I and my associates have taken in Birmingham is untimely. Some have asked: “Why didn’t you give the new city administration time to act?” The only answer that I can give to this query is that the new Birmingham administration must be prodded about as much as the outgoing one, before it will act. We are sadly mistaken if we feel that the election of Albert Boutwell as mayor will bring the millennium to Birmingham. While Mr. Boutwell is a much more gentle person than Mr. Connor, they are both segregationists, dedicated to maintenance of the status quo. I have hope that Mr. Boutwell will be reasonable enough to see the futility of massive resistance to desegregation. But he will not see this without pressure from devotees of civil rights. My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain in civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.

Justice too long delayed is justice denied

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was “well timed” in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word “Wait!” It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This “Wait” has almost always meant “Never.” We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that “justice too long delayed is justice denied.”

We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we still creep at horse and buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say, “Wait.” But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six year old daughter why she can’t go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five year old son who is asking: “Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?”; when you take a cross county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading “white” and “colored”; when your first name becomes “nigger,” your middle name becomes “boy” (however old you are) and your last name becomes “John,” and your wife and mother are never given the respected title “Mrs.”; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of “nobodiness”—then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience.

You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court’s decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an “I it” relationship for an “I thou” relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man’s tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.

Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal.

Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state’s segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured?

Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.

I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.

We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was “legal” and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was “illegal.” It was “illegal” to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler’s Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country’s antireligious laws.

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn’t this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn’t this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn’t this like condemning Jesus because his unique God consciousness and never ceasing devotion to God’s will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber.

I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for freedom. I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes: “All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth.” Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of human dignity.

You speak of our activity in Birmingham as extreme. At first I was rather disappointed that fellow clergymen would see my nonviolent efforts as those of an extremist. I began thinking about the fact that I stand in the middle of two opposing forces in the Negro community. One is a force of complacency, made up in part of Negroes who, as a result of long years of oppression, are so drained of self respect and a sense of “somebodiness” that they have adjusted to segregation; and in part of a few middle-class Negroes who, because of a degree of academic and economic security and because in some ways they profit by segregation, have become insensitive to the problems of the masses. The other force is one of bitterness and hatred, and it comes perilously close to advocating violence. It is expressed in the various black nationalist groups that are springing up across the nation, the largest and best known being Elijah Muhammad’s Muslim movement. Nourished by the Negro’s frustration over the continued existence of racial discrimination, this movement is made up of people who have lost faith in America, who have absolutely repudiated Christianity, and who have concluded that the white man is an incorrigible “devil.”

I have tried to stand between these two forces, saying that we need emulate neither the “do nothingism” of the complacent nor the hatred and despair of the black nationalist. For there is the more excellent way of love and nonviolent protest. I am grateful to God that, through the influence of the Negro church, the way of nonviolence became an integral part of our struggle.

If this philosophy had not emerged, by now many streets of the South would, I am convinced, be flowing with blood. And I am further convinced that if our white brothers dismiss as “rabble rousers” and “outside agitators” those of us who employ nonviolent direct action, and if they refuse to support our nonviolent efforts, millions of Negroes will, out of frustration and despair, seek solace and security in black nationalist ideologies—a development that would inevitably lead to a frightening racial nightmare.

Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself, and that is what has happened to the American Negro. Something within has reminded him of his birthright of freedom, and something without has reminded him that it can be gained. Consciously or unconsciously, he has been caught up by the Zeitgeist, and with his black brothers of Africa and his brown and yellow brothers of Asia, South America and the Caribbean, the United States Negro is moving with a sense of great urgency toward the promised land of racial justice. If one recognizes this vital urge that has engulfed the Negro community, one should readily understand why public demonstrations are taking place. The Negro has many pent up resentments and latent frustrations, and he must release them. So let him march; let him make prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; let him go on freedom rides -and try to understand why he must do so. If his repressed emotions are not released in nonviolent ways, they will seek expression through violence; this is not a threat but a fact of history. So I have not said to my people: “Get rid of your discontent.” Rather, I have tried to say that this normal and healthy discontent can be channeled into the creative outlet of nonviolent direct action. And now this approach is being termed extremist.

The question is not whether we will be extremist, but what kind of extremists we will be

But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.” Was not Amos an extremist for justice: “Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever flowing stream.” Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: “I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.” Was not Martin Luther an extremist: “Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God.” And John Bunyan: “I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience.” And Abraham Lincoln: “This nation cannot survive half slave and half free.” And Thomas Jefferson: “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal . . .” So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? In that dramatic scene on Calvary’s hill three men were crucified. We must never forget that all three were crucified for the same crime—the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other, Jesus Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment. Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.

I had hoped that the white moderate would see this need. Perhaps I was too optimistic; perhaps I expected too much. I suppose I should have realized that few members of the oppressor race can understand the deep groans and passionate yearnings of the oppressed race, and still fewer have the vision to see that injustice must be rooted out by strong, persistent and determined action. I am thankful, however, that some of our white brothers in the South have grasped the meaning of this social revolution and committed themselves to it. They are still all too few in quantity, but they are big in quality. Some -such as Ralph McGill, Lillian Smith, Harry Golden, James McBride Dabbs, Ann Braden and Sarah Patton Boyle—have written about our struggle in eloquent and prophetic terms. Others have marched with us down nameless streets of the South. They have languished in filthy, roach infested jails, suffering the abuse and brutality of policemen who view them as “dirty nigger-lovers.” Unlike so many of their moderate brothers and sisters, they have recognized the urgency of the moment and sensed the need for powerful “action” antidotes to combat the disease of segregation.

Let me take note of my other major disappointment. I have been so greatly disappointed with the white church and its leadership. Of course, there are some notable exceptions. I am not unmindful of the fact that each of you has taken some significant stands on this issue. I commend you, Reverend Stallings, for your Christian stand on this past Sunday, in welcoming Negroes to your worship service on a nonsegregated basis. I commend the Catholic leaders of this state for integrating Spring Hill College several years ago.

But despite these notable exceptions, I must honestly reiterate that I have been disappointed with the church. I do not say this as one of those negative critics who can always find something wrong with the church. I say this as a minister of the gospel, who loves the church; who was nurtured in its bosom; who has been sustained by its spiritual blessings and who will remain true to it as long as the cord of life shall lengthen.

When I was suddenly catapulted into the leadership of the bus protest in Montgomery, Alabama, a few years ago, I felt we would be supported by the white church. I felt that the white ministers, priests and rabbis of the South would be among our strongest allies. Instead, some have been outright opponents, refusing to understand the freedom movement and misrepresenting its leaders; all too many others have been more cautious than courageous and have remained silent behind the anesthetizing security of stained glass windows.

In spite of my shattered dreams, I came to Birmingham with the hope that the white religious leadership of this community would see the justice of our cause and, with deep moral concern, would serve as the channel through which our just grievances could reach the power structure. I had hoped that each of you would understand. But again I have been disappointed.

I have heard numerous southern religious leaders admonish their worshipers to comply with a desegregation decision because it is the law, but I have longed to hear white ministers declare: “Follow this decree because integration is morally right and because the Negro is your brother.” In the midst of blatant injustices inflicted upon the Negro, I have watched white churchmen stand on the sideline and mouth pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities. In the midst of a mighty struggle to rid our nation of racial and economic injustice, I have heard many ministers say: “Those are social issues, with which the gospel has no real concern.” And I have watched many churches commit themselves to a completely other worldly religion which makes a strange, un-Biblical distinction between body and soul, between the sacred and the secular.

I have traveled the length and breadth of Alabama, Mississippi and all the other southern states. On sweltering summer days and crisp autumn mornings I have looked at the South’s beautiful churches with their lofty spires pointing heavenward. I have beheld the impressive outlines of her massive religious education buildings. Over and over I have found myself asking: “What kind of people worship here? Who is their God? Where were their voices when the lips of Governor Barnett dripped with words of interposition and nullification? Where were they when Governor Wallace gave a clarion call for defiance and hatred? Where were their voices of support when bruised and weary Negro men and women decided to rise from the dark dungeons of complacency to the bright hills of creative protest?”

Yes, these questions are still in my mind. In deep disappointment I have wept over the laxity of the church. But be assured that my tears have been tears of love. There can be no deep disappointment where there is not deep love. Yes, I love the church. How could I do otherwise? I am in the rather unique position of being the son, the grandson and the great grandson of preachers. Yes, I see the church as the body of Christ. But, oh! How we have blemished and scarred that body through social neglect and through fear of being nonconformists.

There was a time when the church was very powerful—in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being “disturbers of the peace” and “outside agitators.”’ But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were “a colony of heaven,” called to obey God rather than man. Small in number, they were big in commitment. They were too God-intoxicated to be “astronomically intimidated.” By their effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial contests.

Things are different now. So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an archdefender of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church’s silent—and often even vocal—sanction of things as they are.

But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If today’s church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. Every day I meet young people whose disappointment with the church has turned into outright disgust.

Perhaps I have once again been too optimistic. Is organized religion too inextricably bound to the status quo to save our nation and the world? Perhaps I must turn my faith to the inner spiritual church, the church within the church, as the true ekklesia and the hope of the world. But again I am thankful to God that some noble souls from the ranks of organized religion have broken loose from the paralyzing chains of conformity and joined us as active partners in the struggle for freedom. They have left their secure congregations and walked the streets of Albany, Georgia, with us. They have gone down the highways of the South on tortuous rides for freedom. Yes, they have gone to jail with us. Some have been dismissed from their churches, have lost the support of their bishops and fellow ministers. But they have acted in the faith that right defeated is stronger than evil triumphant. Their witness has been the spiritual salt that has preserved the true meaning of the gospel in these troubled times. They have carved a tunnel of hope through the dark mountain of disappointment.

I hope the church as a whole will meet the challenge of this decisive hour. But even if the church does not come to the aid of justice, I have no despair about the future. I have no fear about the outcome of our struggle in Birmingham, even if our motives are at present misunderstood. We will reach the goal of freedom in Birmingham and all over the nation, because the goal of America is freedom. Abused and scorned though we may be, our destiny is tied up with America’s destiny. Before the pilgrims landed at Plymouth, we were here. Before the pen of Jefferson etched the majestic words of the Declaration of Independence across the pages of history, we were here. For more than two centuries our forebears labored in this country without wages; they made cotton king; they built the homes of their masters while suffering gross injustice and shameful humiliation -and yet out of a bottomless vitality they continued to thrive and develop. If the inexpressible cruelties of slavery could not stop us, the opposition we now face will surely fail. We will win our freedom because the sacred heritage of our nation and the eternal will of God are embodied in our echoing demands.

Before closing I feel impelled to mention one other point in your statement that has troubled me profoundly. You warmly commended the Birmingham police force for keeping “order” and “preventing violence.” I doubt that you would have so warmly commended the police force if you had seen its dogs sinking their teeth into unarmed, nonviolent Negroes. I doubt that you would so quickly commend the policemen if you were to observe their ugly and inhumane treatment of Negroes here in the city jail; if you were to watch them push and curse old Negro women and young Negro girls; if you were to see them slap and kick old Negro men and young boys; if you were to observe them, as they did on two occasions, refuse to give us food because we wanted to sing our grace together. I cannot join you in your praise of the Birmingham police department.

It is true that the police have exercised a degree of discipline in handling the demonstrators. In this sense they have conducted themselves rather “nonviolently” in public. But for what purpose? To preserve the evil system of segregation. Over the past few years I have consistently preached that nonviolence demands that the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek. I have tried to make clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends. But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or perhaps even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends. Perhaps Mr. Connor and his policemen have been rather nonviolent in public, as was Chief Pritchett in Albany, Georgia, but they have used the moral means of nonviolence to maintain the immoral end of racial injustice. As T. S. Eliot has said: “The last temptation is the greatest treason: To do the right deed for the wrong reason.”

I wish you had commended the Negro sit inners and demonstrators of Birmingham for their sublime courage, their willingness to suffer and their amazing discipline in the midst of great provocation. One day the South will recognize its real heroes. They will be the James Merediths, with the noble sense of purpose that enables them to face jeering and hostile mobs, and with the agonizing loneliness that characterizes the life of the pioneer. They will be old, oppressed, battered Negro women, symbolized in a seventy two year old woman in Montgomery, Alabama, who rose up with a sense of dignity and with her people decided not to ride segregated buses, and who responded with ungrammatical profundity to one who inquired about her weariness: “My feets is tired, but my soul is at rest.” They will be the young high school and college students, the young ministers of the gospel and a host of their elders, courageously and nonviolently sitting in at lunch counters and willingly going to jail for conscience’ sake. One day the South will know that when these disinherited children of God sat down at lunch counters, they were in reality standing up for what is best in the American dream and for the most sacred values in our Judaeo Christian heritage, thereby bringing our nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the founding fathers in their formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

Never before have I written so long a letter. I’m afraid it is much too long to take your precious time. I can assure you that it would have been much shorter if I had been writing from a comfortable desk, but what else can one do when he is alone in a narrow jail cell, other than write long letters, think long thoughts and pray long prayers?

If I have said anything in this letter that overstates the truth and indicates an unreasonable impatience, I beg you to forgive me. If I have said anything that understates the truth and indicates my having a patience that allows me to settle for anything less than brotherhood, I beg God to forgive me.

I hope this letter finds you strong in the faith. I also hope that circumstances will soon make it possible for me to meet each of you, not as an integrationist or a civil-rights leader but as a fellow clergyman and a Christian brother. Let us all hope that the dark clouds of racial prejudice will soon pass away and the deep fog of misunderstanding will be lifted from our fear drenched communities, and in some not too distant tomorrow the radiant stars of love and brotherhood will shine over our great nation with all their scintillating beauty.

Yours for the cause of Peace and Brotherhood,

Martin Luther King, Jr.

Letter From Birmingham Jail

46 pages • 1 hour read

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more. For select classroom titles, we also provide Teaching Guides with discussion and quiz questions to prompt student engagement.

Essay Analysis

Key Figures

Symbols & Motifs

Literary Devices

Important Quotes

Essay Topics

Discussion Questions

Essay Analysis Story Analysis

Analysis: “letter from birmingham jail”.

“Letter from Birmingham Jail” is considered by many to be a masterpiece of American essay writing and political rhetoric . King’s adept handling of persuasive appeals and his interventions in the representation of the stakeholders in the struggle for civil rightsallowed him to introduce the Civil Rights Movement to a national audience that may well have had negative perceptions of it.

Don't Miss Out!

Access Study Guide Now

Related Titles

By Martin Luther King Jr.

A Testament of Hope

Martin Luther King Jr.

I Have A Dream Speech

I've Been to the Mountaintop

Stride Toward Freedom

Why We Can't Wait

Featured Collections

African American Literature

View Collection

Black History Month Reads

Essays & Speeches

Letter From Birmingham Jail

By martin luther king, jr., letter from birmingham jail essay questions.

Discuss Dr. King’s use of restraint in the “Letter.” What does it reveal about his purpose, and what is its effect?

Considering the context of its creation, the “Letter from Birmingham Jail” is remarkably restrained in tone. Throughout his career, many critics of Dr. King argued that he was too deferential to the white authorities that facilitated segregation and other racist policies, but the tone here seems to serve several purposes. First, it conforms to his ultimate purpose of justifying his cause as being in the name of justice. He does not wish to validate his audience’s deep-seeded fears - that the black movement is an extremist set that will engender violence. Therefore, by utilizing restraint, he earns a sympathetic ear to which he then declares his proud embrace of extremism and tension. His difficult arguments end up practically unimpeachable precisely because he has presented them through logos as well as through pathos. However, the restraint also allows him to reinforce one of the letter’s central themes, the interconnectedness of man. There are times when he distinguishes himself and his cause from that of his opponents, particularly in terms of race. However, he for the most part suggests that all men are responsible for all others, an idea that would not be as effective if the tone of the argument was too fiery and confrontational.

How does the “Letter” deal with the subject of race?

Considering it was written in a situation so infused with racial issues, the “Letter from Birmingham Jail” is often strangely divorced from explicitly racial issues. Obviously, Dr. King cannot avoid the topic, but much of his argument, especially in the letter’s first half, is presented in universalist terms and through abstractions like “justice” and the interrelatedness of man. He argues that the clergymen, and his larger audience, should support his cause not because the victims are black but because it is the right thing to do. However, this passionate but restrained argument ultimately sets the stage for a declaration of what scholar Jonathan Rieder calls “a proclamation of black self-sufficiency” (94). Once he establishes the definitions of justice and morality, Dr. King argues that the black man will succeed with or without the help of white moderates because they operate with the just ideals of both secular America and divine guidance. Further, he implicitly suggests that by continuing to facilitate the oppression of the black man through moderation, his audience is operating in sin and will ultimately be on the losing side.

Why does Dr. King decry moderation?

In Dr. King’s argument, moderation is a reflection of the moderate’s ignorant and unwitting sinfulness. In terms of the former, the white moderate operates under an illusion that patience will be more effective towards ending segregation than tension will be. Through a variety of legally-structured arguments, Dr. King illustrates the fallacy of both these assumptions. He argues that moderation is but a handy disguise for cowards who fear upsetting the status quo more than desire to pursue justice. However, because he stipulates that his audience is ostensibly interested in the virtue of justice, he argues that moderation allows them license to live in a sinfulness of inaction. To view the suffering of others but to remain silent facilitates a world where men are “separate,” which he equates with sinfulness. Through a variety of unambiguous comparisons – the just crusader to Jesus, and the moderates to those who did not protect the Jews of Nazi Germany – Dr. King decries moderation as the largest obstacle towards equal rights in America at the time.

How does the discussion of group immorality relate to the letter’s overall purpose?

One recurring idea that supports Dr. King’s arguments is that group mentality supports and enables immorality, and that the individual must therefore act for justice even when the group does not share that goal. He makes this point explicitly in the early part of the “Letter.” This argument supports his defense of civil disobedience, allows him to criticize the church for supporting the status quo rather than empowering crusaders for change, and supports the idea that law must reflect morality since it might otherwise be designed solely for the comfort of the majority. Overall, the discussion of group immorality supports his purpose of encouraging individual action in the face of injustice, and criticizing those who do not support such individual action for fear of upsetting the status quo.

Who is the letter’s intended audience?

On the surface, “Letter from Birmingham Jail” is intended for the Birmingham clergymen who published an open letter criticizing the actions of Dr. King and the SCLC. And yet little by little, it becomes clear that Dr. King intends this statement for a much larger audience. Based on the arguments he makes and the stipulations he assumes, it is possible to construct the audience he means to be affected by this letter: a moderate, white, generally moral but conflicted group. He is clearly addressing people who represent the power class, but assumes in several arguments that they support the ideals of justice, at least on the surface. More specifically, he assumes they accept the validity of Christian morality. And yet his harsh tone is much more universalist than simply the criticism of the clergymen would support. In attacking moderation, he addresses himself to parties as high-ranking as the Kennedys to as everyday as students and churchgoers who are witnessing the changes of the civil rights era without admitting their own moral responsibility to support it as a quest for positive change.

Professor Jonathan Rieder argues that the “Letter” can be understood as having two sections: the “Diplomat” and “Prophet” sections. What does this mean, and how do these sections differ?

While Rieder’s designations are perhaps too tight to be perfectly applicable, they do help to understand the overall progression of “Letter from Birmingham Jail.” At the beginning, Dr. King is playing a “diplomat,” attempting to reach a certain end through polite, restrained means. His hope is that he will not only defend himself against the clergymen and white moderates in general, but also that he will encourage them to support his cause. Knowing that their fears and anxieties will predispose them to doubt his call to action, he presents the call through a variety of rational arguments and personal pathos. And yet as the arguments progress, Dr. King’s attacks become less passive aggressive and more direct, moving him into a sort of “prophet” who no longer argues that he needs the support of his audience. Though he obviously would prefer it, he is firm in his commitment to justice and certain that his cause will succeed because of that commitment. By the end, he is no longer arguing, but telling his audience that change will come, and that they should join him not because he needs them, but because they need it so as to not avoid later regret over their cowardice and sinfulness.

Discuss Dr. King’s use of allusions throughout the text. How do they strengthen his argument and underscore his overall message?

Due to the extent of his higher learning, Dr. King had ready access to a number of allusions from a variety of religious and secular traditions, and he makes full use of that knowledge in the “Letter.” While each allusion serves a particular purpose in the context of the argument in which it is used, when taken together they underline two aspects of his argument. First is his argument that all men are interrelated, and responsible for one another. The multiple traditions from which Dr. King draws his allusions reflects this belief, showing his deference for and trust in a variety of approaches, including: secular theory; Jewish theology; Christian thinkers; political figures; and historical persons. Secondly, Dr. King’s use of multiple traditions for his allusions reinforces the unimpeachability of his argument. By directing the text to peoples of so many backgrounds, and using their most celebrated figures to support his case, he makes it difficult for any person to view the overall argument as separate from him or his own culture or background.

In what ways does the “Letter” attack the clergymen even when being outwardly deferential towards them?

If nothing else, “Letter from Birmingham Jail” is a masterpiece of pointed passive aggression. Even when he becomes more confrontational in the letter’s second half, Dr. King is always deferential, offering the possibility that the clergymen sin from ignorance or error, thereby offering them a way to backtrack. And yet his attacks are incessant, usually through implicit threats or suggestions. When he explains the many distinctions that support his cause – such as the differences between just and unjust laws, violence and nonviolence, or just means and unjust ends – he is implicitly suggesting that the clergymen are too dense to realize the nuances of the situation they have so openly criticized. In other cases, he uses unimpeachable figures – like Jesus Christ or Abraham Lincoln – to illustrate the basic way in which the clergymen are acting hypocritically. Finally, he uses occasional warnings, suggesting that oppressed people will inevitably fight for freedom, and so the clergymen are inviting violent revolution if they do not support Dr. King’s nonviolent crusade. Overall, the “Letter” is a litany of attacks even though it is presented more as a defense.

In what ways do Dr. King’s repeated references to Socrates help to elucidate his overall approach?

Except for Jesus Christ, Socrates is the allusion Dr. King most often uses to make his point. Though the allusion serves several particular purposes – as a symbol of wisdom or of civil disobedience – it often speaks to Dr. King’s overall approach in the “Letter.” The Socratic dialogues are masterpieces of misdirection, as Socrates does not offer answers but rather questions assertions made by other people. His overall point is ultimately made by speaking in his opponent’s language, hence showing the natural human inclination towards fallacy. Dr. King uses a similar approach, structuring most of his letter as a direct defense against the criticism published by the clergymen. By speaking in their voice, he suggests a sense of deference even as he is dismantling his opponents’ arguments and revealing them as misguided, or worse, fools. Further, he frequently uses their definitions to show how they are contradicting themselves. Though Dr. King has a more pointed suggestion to make about the world than Socrates did, he nevertheless recognized in the Socratic method a rhetorical approach that would pacify the knee-jerk defenses of his opponents so he could then defeat them.

Detail the distinction between just and unjust laws. Why is it important Dr. King make this distinction?

Arguably the most sophisticated section of the “Letter” is Dr. King’s distinction between just and unjust laws. Simply put, he suggests that just laws uphold human dignity, while unjust laws demean it. Though he makes other subsumed distinctions (like the way just and unjust laws either punish or include minorities), this general definition serves to illustrate his overarching point: that laws are not separate from morality, but instead ought to be reflections of it. Presupposing that his audience accepts the virtue of morality (and more specifically, of Judeo-Christian morality), Dr. King illustrates that unjust laws demean all men, the oppressed and oppressor both. Thus, a moral man cannot simply suffer those laws because they are the law. The argument lays the groundwork for the “Letter” to pose a call to individual action, a defense of those who stand up and sacrifice themselves and their comfort in the name of freedom and justice.

Letter From Birmingham Jail Questions and Answers

The Question and Answer section for Letter From Birmingham Jail is a great resource to ask questions, find answers, and discuss the novel.

what injustices does dr. king describe in the letter from Birmingham jail.

Dr. King provides a moral reason for his presence, saying that he came to Birmingham to battle “injustice.” Because he believes that “all communities and states” are interrelated, he feels compelled to work for justice anywhere that injustice is...

How do allusions that King uses in his letter help the audience relate to him and what he is saying?

King uses allusions to align his arguments with famous thinkers of Western civilization.

John Donne : "New Day in Birmingham" allusion to "No Man is an Island" .

John Bunyan : Puritan writer, imprisoned; "I will stay in jail before I make a butchery...

The timing of the protest continued to change because

D. They did not want to interfere with the mayoral election.

Study Guide for Letter From Birmingham Jail

Letter From Birmingham Jail study guide contains a biography of Martin Luther King, Jr., literature essays, quiz questions, major themes, characters, and a full summary and analysis.

• About Letter From Birmingham Jail
• Letter From Birmingham Jail Summary
• Character List

Essays for Letter From Birmingham Jail

Letter From Birmingham Jail essays are academic essays for citation. These papers were written primarily by students and provide critical analysis of Letter From Birmingham Jail by Martin Luther King, Jr.

• Rhetorical Analysis of “Letter From a Birmingham Jail”
• How Stoicism Supports Civil Disobedience
• We Are in This Together: Comparing "Letter from Birmingham Jail" and "Sonny's Blues"
• Fighting Inequality with the Past: A Look into "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" and Related Historical Documents
• A Question of Appeal: Rhetorical Analysis of Malcolm X and MLK

Lesson Plan for Letter From Birmingham Jail

• About the Author
• Study Objectives
• Common Core Standards
• Introduction to Letter From Birmingham Jail
• Relationship to Other Books
• Bringing in Technology
• Notes to the Teacher
• Related Links
• Letter From Birmingham Jail Bibliography

Wikipedia Entries for Letter From Birmingham Jail

• Introduction
• Summary and themes
• Publication

• Martin Luther King Essays

Martin Luther King. Jr. Letter From Birmingham Jail Essay

The Letter from Birmingham Jail, written by Martin Luther King, Jr. from the city jail in Birmingham, Alabama, was a response letter to a dictating statement made by eight Clergymen belonging to the majority white sections. Even while responding to each and every charge of the clergyman, King tries to persuade both the Clergymen as well as the moderate sections of the White population to understand the African-American point of view. From earlier times, the social activists in order to actualize and promote social justice will normally use rhetorical and at the same time persuasive strategies to persuade theirs’ opponents. On those same lines, King in his letter tries to persuade certain sections of the population by adopting Aristotle’s rhetoric devices or three modes of persuasion, Ethos, Pathos and Logos.

Struggling with your HW?

Get your assignments done by real pros. Save your precious time and boost your marks with ease. Just fill in your HW requirements and you can count on us!

• Customer data protection
• 100% Plagiarism Free

View the Martin Luther King, Jr. "Letter from Birmingham Jail" Summary by Studyfy!

Martin Luther King exhibits clear and at the same high sense of Ethos in the letter, starting from the first paragraph itself. Ethos in a written or spoken content is related to the characteristics including the morality of the person. He/she would always take moral and fair decisions, without compromising ethics. Although, he states that he and his secretaries may not read and reply to all the criticism letters, he had made attempt to give a reply to this letter by the Clergymen, whom he views as good people and also as he wants to answer in a patient and reasonable mindset. “I feel that you are men of genuine good will and that your criticisms are sincerely set forth, I want to try to answer your statements in what I hope will be patient and reasonable terms.” (King 1). Through these words, King gives importance to the Clergymen, and this valuing will surely make these Clergymen favourably consider King’s response letter. The other aspect of Ethos is to represent himself/herself as an equivalent to their counterparts and importantly to prove that he/she has the power to handle the affairs and the authority to represent his/her people. King puts forward this aspect by stating how he has served as the President of the Southern Christian Leadership conference, and how that tenure proves that he has apt authority to represent the African-Americans in any level of talks. (King 2). Furthermore, King likens him as a prophet of freedom like Paul, who has been given the authority by his people to represent and talk for them. “Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid.” (King 3). This elevation of himself, again shows that he is better endowed and understanding person, who can exhibit the mindset and views of the African Americans effectively.

To further impress upon the Clergymen and also the moderate sections about their suppression and plight, and how they have to be understood and treated fairly, King uses Pathos. King tries to evoke Pathos by pointing out in vivid details how the daily lives of the African Americans is becoming living hell due to the brutalities, carried out by the majority sections. “But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim.” (King 14). By pointing out how even a small child has not remained unaffected by the oppression carried out by the Whites, he further evokes sympathy. “…when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your sex-year-old daughter why she can’t go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television” (King 14). Through these lines, King wants to showcase to the Clergymen, who criticised him, how his fellow men and woman are struggling to live a life with respect. Pathos was again used as a mode of persuasion in the latter part of the letter, when he talks about how the Police gravely assaulted and repressed the harmless African-Americans. “…if you had seen its dogs sinking their teeth into unarmed, nonviolent Negroes…if you were to see them slap and kick old Negro men and young boys” (King 45). King wrote about these grave incidents as part of Pathos, as he wanted the Clergymen and the moderate sections to believe that injustice is maximally happening to the African-Americans.

To convince and persuade the Clergymen, King uses the rhetoric mode of Logos at the starting of the letter itself. While countering the charge of the Clergymen that he and his people are involving in aggressive actions to fulfil their wants, King points out how they had to take the harsher route after exhausting all the peaceful options. He explains that all the non-violent steps, which have been taken before the protests were started, including collection of facts, negotiation, self purification and direct action, did not provide expected results. They even tried to negotiate with the pertinent authorities, but of no avail. “Negro leaders sought to negotiate with the city fathers. But the latter consistently refused to engage in good-faith negotiation.” (King 6). On the lines of the persuasion mode, Logos, King provides more facts of how negotiations did not yield any positive result, as there were no follow-up actions on the part of the White population. “In the course of the negotiations, certain promises were made by the merchants–for example, to remove the stores humiliating racial signs. On the basis of these promises…moratorium on all demonstrations. As the weeks and months went by, we realized that we were the victims of a broken promise.” (King 7). Thus, it is clear that King aptly used Logos to send across the message that the African-Americans did not indulged in aggressive actions at the first instance itself, but were provoked to do, as there were no follow-up actions after the negotiations.

Used our essay samples for inspiration ?

For more help, tap into our pool of professional writers and get expert essay editing services!

From the above analysis of King’s Letter from the Birmingham Jail, it is clear that he has aptly used Ethos, Pathos and Logos to persuade his critics or Clergyman, and make them understand his point of view. For that, he first shows and implies to the Clergyman that he is a man of reputation, then secondly, he arouses the sympathy of the readers regarding the oppression and struggles of the African Americans and finally, he aptly uses logic by pointing out how they started indulging in protests as the last resort.

King, Martin Luther, Jr. “Letter from Brimingham Jail.” Frequently requested document. 
 Standford University, 18 Dec. 2000. Web. 31 Mar. 2011. 
 .

Related Essays

Find Free Essays

We provide you with original essay samples, perfect formatting and styling

Request must contain at least 2 characters

Popular Topics

Samples by Essay Type

Cite this page

About our services

Topic Martin Luther King

Level Ph.D.

This sample is NOT ORIGINAL. Get 100% unique essay written under your req

• Only $11 per page
• Free revisions included

Studyfy uses cookies to deliver the best experience possible. Read more.

Studyfy uses secured cookies. Read more.

“Letter From Birmingham Jail” Rhetorical Analysis Essay

Below, you may read MLK’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” rhetorical analysis. It looks at different techniques, appeals, and methods used by the author in his work.

Introduction

On April 19, 1963, Martin Luther King Jr (MLK) wrote a detailed letter from Birmingham Jail in reply to some public releases which were directed at undermining his fight for civil equality. Most of the Martin Luther statements were very rhetorical, whereby he employed Aristotle’s kinds of persuasion to convince his audience. He made use of ethos, pathos, and logos, which are directed towards his own reputation and wisdom, to have the attention of the audience and to have the logic of influential thinkers, respectively. This “Letter from Birmingham Jail” Rhetorical Analysis Essay aims at defining a list of rhetorical devices used in the letter with examples.

“Letter from Birmingham Jail” Rhetorical Analysis of the First Paragraphs

Rhetorical devices are present from the first paragraph. In his efforts to promote civil rights on behalf of the American community, he starts by explaining his state of confinement in the jail, which is a clear indication of how the poor are suffering in the hands of an unjust society. He further states that he would wish to respond to their recent statements that his activities are unwise and untimely. This is meant to let the clergymen understand that Martin Luther King Jr. was well aware of their mind.

He proceeds to say that if he decided to look at each criticism that comes through his office, he would have no time for his work. In this statement, Luther King wants to let his critics know that his civil rights work is far much significant than the criticism they have been directing towards him and that they would rather concentrate on their work since he has no time to direct towards their attacks. He also terms their criticism as genuine and set forth as a way of showing them that he can understand the reason behind their criticism.

He further indicates in the second paragraph the fact that the clergymen have an issue with outsiders coming into the city, whereby he intends to let them know that though they are against him, many are on his side since he states that it was an invitation.

This again appears in the fourth paragraph, where he says that as long as a person is within the United States, no one should claim that he is an outsider. He also states that “I have the honor of serving as president of the Southern Christian leadership conference” (King 1) to show them he equally holds a religious leadership position as they do, and he has the right to exercise his faith.

What Type of Appeal Is Martin Luther King, Jr. Using from the Third to Fifth Paragraphs?

In the third paragraph, he likens himself with Paul to make it clear that he is a prophet of freedom and liberation, just like Paul . Claiming that he has been sent by Jesus shows that he has a very high authority in the religious field, and though people may be against him, God is on his side. Just as Jesus sent his disciples all over the world to take the gospel, Martin Luther makes it clear that he came to Birmingham due to the injustice that was prevailing.

In the fourth paragraph, Martin Luther says that “moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states” (King 2). He wanted to have his audience understand that he belonged to the congregation of the elites, and he has sufficient wisdom to put his opinions across. When he mentions the city’s white power structure, he wanted to trigger the mind of his critics who were only concerned with the demonstrations that were taking place rather than the reason behind these demonstrations.

In the fifth paragraph, he proceeds to mention that “the ugly records of brutality” (King 2) in Birmingham are widely known. This further insisted that his critics were less concerned with the more critical issues such as injustice that Negroes were facing in the city by trying to hinder those who were fighting for this justice. It is evident since even after he had taken the legal steps towards all his activities, he was still being discriminated against.

“Letter from Birmingham Jail” Rhetorical Analysis from the Seventh to Fourteenth Paragraphs

In the seventh paragraph, he states that ‘we were victims of a broken promise’ to show that regardless of the agreement they had made earlier on to remove any sign of racial discrimination, the rest were not concerned apart from his assembly. In paragraph eight, he says that “our hopes had been blasted and the shadows of deep disappointment settled upon us” (King 4).

This shows that the King would recognize the faults but does not wish to blame anyone. The phrase “that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood” (King 4) was meant to unite all people in the fight against racism.

Rhetorical Analysis of the “Letter from Birmingham Jail” shows that In the fourteenth paragraph, King uses his logical, non-threatening appeal to show the urgency of his civil right actions in the city. He puts it clear that people have endured long enough and that there are now becoming impatient with the way events are unfolding every day. He supports his argument in the next paragraph, where he puts it across that they have been governed by a combination of unjust and just law whereby there is a need to separate the two.

The above discussion is just but a few of King’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” rhetorical appeals representations. Throughout his letter, King uses strong, almost unquestionable logic that makes his piece of writing very outstanding due to its unique method of development.

King Luther. Letter from Birmingham Jail . Stanford University, 1964. Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, December 19). “Letter From Birmingham Jail” Rhetorical Analysis Essay. https://ivypanda.com/essays/rhetorical-analysis-on-martin-luther-king-jr-letter-from-birmingham-jail/

"“Letter From Birmingham Jail” Rhetorical Analysis Essay." IvyPanda , 19 Dec. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/rhetorical-analysis-on-martin-luther-king-jr-letter-from-birmingham-jail/.

IvyPanda . (2023) '“Letter From Birmingham Jail” Rhetorical Analysis Essay'. 19 December.

IvyPanda . 2023. "“Letter From Birmingham Jail” Rhetorical Analysis Essay." December 19, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/rhetorical-analysis-on-martin-luther-king-jr-letter-from-birmingham-jail/.

1. IvyPanda . "“Letter From Birmingham Jail” Rhetorical Analysis Essay." December 19, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/rhetorical-analysis-on-martin-luther-king-jr-letter-from-birmingham-jail/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "“Letter From Birmingham Jail” Rhetorical Analysis Essay." December 19, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/rhetorical-analysis-on-martin-luther-king-jr-letter-from-birmingham-jail/.

• Rhetorical Techniques in “Letter From Birmingham Jail” by Martin Luther King
• Martin Luther King's “Letter From a Birmingham Jail”
• Separate but Equal: "Letter From Birmingham Jail" by Martin Luther King Jr.
• "Letter From a Birmingham Jail" by M. L. King, Jr.
• “A Letter From Birmingham Jail” and “I Have A Dream” by M. L. King Jr.
• Martin Luther King, Jr.
• Analysis of the Kings Letter From Birmingham Jail
• Martin Luther King Jr.’s Letter From Birmingham Jail
• Martin Luther King Argument From Birmingham Jail
• “Letter From Birmingham Jail” by M. L. King, Jr.
• I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou: Three Stages of Spiritual Revival
• “The Road Not Taken” by Robert Frost
• “The Mysterious Stranger” by Mark Twain
• Trends in “Love is a Fallacy”
• Harry Houdini

Home / Essay Samples / Social Issues / Racism / Letter From Birmingham Jail

Letter from Birmingham Jail Essay Examples

Compare and contrast analysis of 'i have a dream' and 'letter from birmingham jail'.

The famous civil rights activist Dr. Martin Luther King called for a change in his society. He stood for social, economic, and political rights of the black community and helped protect the rights and freedom from infringement by the segregated society through the power of...

The Aristotelian Appeals in Martin Luther King Jr.’s "Letter from Birmingham Jail"

Over the course of Letter from Birmingham Jail (1963), the author, Martin Luther King Jnr., makes extended allusions to multiple philosophers, among them theologizer and Athenian. His comparison would appear to point that he shares associate affinity with them. However, the clarity with that he...

Use of Ethos, Pathos, and Logos in Martin Luther King Jr.’s Letter from Birmingham Jail

The Civil Rights Movement did not suddenly appear out of nowhere in the twentieth century. The efforts to improve the quality of life for African Americans are as old as the United States. However, it was until the year of the 1960s, a nonviolent approach...

Analysis of Rhetorical Techniques in Martin Luther King Junior’s Letter from Birmingham Jail

On April 12, 1963, Martin Luther King Jr. was arrested in Birmingham Alabama for parading without a permit. A few days after his arrest a letter written by local religious leaders was smuggled into his cell. The letter criticized King and the local civil rights...

Martin's "Letter from Birmingham City Jail" and 'A Call for Unity' Letter

This is “Letter from Birmingham Jail” and “A call for unity” rhetorical analysis paper in which I will shortly analyse the relation between these two letters ans how Martin  Luther King uses pathos and logos in his letter.  April 16, 196, Martin Luther King, Jr.,...

Rhetorical Analysis of Ml King's Letter from a Birmingham Jail

Over the course of Letter from Birmingham Jail (1963), the author, Martin Luther King Jr. , makes extended allusions to multiple philosophers, among them Aquinas and Socrates. His comparison would seem to indicate that he shares an affinity with them. However, the clarity with which...

Analysis of the Main Statements in the Letter from Birmingham Jail

Throughout Letter from Birmingham Jail, King makes multiple statements disapproving some clergymen. King states that he is upset with them and their actions; therefore, he follows through a list of statements to explain what they have done and then addresses their concerns as well as...

Persuasiveness and Effectiveness of "Letter from Birmingham Jail"

Martin Luther King Jr. was an African American who worked for racial equality and civil rights in the United States of America. He was born on January 15, 1929 in Atlanta, Georgia. From my perspective King brought to the world’s attention on how unfairly blacks...

Analysis of Martin Luther King’s Letter from Birmingham Jail

“A letter from Birmingham jail” is an argumentative response written by Martin Luther King Jr. to eight white religious leaders of the south in 1962. This was the time when segregation against negroes was at its peak. King was the president of Southern Christian Leadership...

Trying to find an excellent essay sample but no results?

Don’t waste your time and get a professional writer to help!

You may also like

• Capital Punishment
• Affirmative Action
• Martin Luther King Essays
• Social Isolation Essays
• White Privilege Essays
• Racial Discrimination Essays
• Black Lives Matter Essays
• Public Shaming Essays
• Animal Testing Essays
• Cyber Bullying Essays
• Gay Marriage Essays
• Death Penalty Essays

samplius.com uses cookies to offer you the best service possible.By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .--> -->