Do you think Martin Luther King Went too far in his "Letter from Birmingham Jail” do you think he did not go far enough?
No, I do not believe that Martin Luther King went ‘too far’ at all in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail”, since the injustice and oppression blacks faced were very real, and the white clergy he was writing to had never done anything for civil right and just wished he would go away. Martin Luther King could have been a lot more violent and angry than he was in this letter, given that in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963 police dogs and firehouses being turned on nonviolent demonstrators and his own life being threatened continually by the Ku Klux Klan, he certainly could have gone much further in his anger, outrage, and calls for violent retaliation n the “Letter from Birmingham Jail”. This city was really going ‘too far’, and had the nickname ‘Bombingham’ because the Ku Klux Klan was carrying out so many attacks like these, including on the hotel where King was staying and on the 16th Street Baptist Church where the demonstrations were being coordinated—a bombing that killed four little black girls in a Sunday school class. These same white ministers never seemed to condemn the KKK and the police for going ‘too far’, even when they engaged in outright murder and other violent crimes. On the other side, there were also Black Muslim leaders like Malcolm X and young militants in groups like the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), who thought that King was too mild and moderate in dealing with the southern racists, and that the time was long past to use more violent methods. King always opposed this up to the time of his assassination in 1968, however, since they violated his principles of Christian and Gandhian pacifism and love. He also thought that it would simply be impractical for blacks to win a violent battle or civil war with whites in the U.S., so in spite of tremendous provocations and acts of violence by his enemies, remained on the nonviolent path until his assassination in 1968. He definitely did have enemies, very powerful ones, who just wanted to keep the status quo in place as it had been for decades, so far them any kind of change was going ‘too far’. King thought that change was essential, however, and that if it did not come nonviolently then it would be violent.
This principled stand in the face of continual violence and threats gave King an immense moral authority when he led the civil rights movement from 1955-68. His pretext for writing a letter was a response to a group of ‘moderate’ white clergy who had opposed the demonstrations in Birmingham. More than likely, he understood very well that these men were really not all that moderate and had no real sympathy for cause of black civil rights. It did give him an opportunity to condemn all moderate whites in the South for failing to take a stand against the extreme violence of the segregationists and Ku Klux Klan. Even the ‘moderate’ whites did not want him in the city, called his demonstrations “unwise and untimely” and hoped only that he would leave (King 567).
King also expressed disappointment with white moderates all over the South who were simply standing on the sidelines for the most part and letting the racists, the KKK and segregationists have their way. King affirmed his deeply-held convictions about Christian nonviolence and social justice, which were regular themes in all his speeches and writings, and regardless of whether the Southern white clergy were listening to him. He was in Birmingham “because injustice is here” and just as Paul “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” (King 569). King believed that “freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed” and “justice too long delayed is justice denied” (King 571). If this was going ‘too far’ then blacks had certainly been very patient for decades with a system that denied them basic civil rights. Although the white clergy condemned him for breaking the law for King laws that oppressed or enslaved minorities or degraded the “human personality” were unjust. Blacks in the South had no right to vote or decide in the creation of these laws, and therefore should break them, although “one who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly and with a willingness to accept the penalty” (King 573). He could point to the example of Gandhi and many other leaders of nonviolent protest movements in the past, who were also accused of going ‘too far’ in their time, but were in the end absolved by history.
As a Christian leader of a nonviolent protest movement, this practice of love and restraint was very sincere on King’s part, and also made him a very effective leader. He could have gone much further than he did in the direction of violence and it would have been understandable. By remaining a pacifist he just ended up looking far more morally advanced and decent than the forces that were aligned against him. His continued support for nonviolence in the face of constant violence from the other side also made him a more effective leader and advocate for civil rights, so much so that he would even be awarded a Nobel Peace Prize in 1964. In his Letter, he also warned the world that in the United States, twenty million blacks were “smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society”, and if f nonviolence failed then the country would soon face “a frightening racial nightmare” (King 572). King was certainly outraged at the indifference of most white churches, and he spoke as the son, grandson and great-grandson of ministers. He noted that “every day I meet young people whose disappointment with the church has turned into outright disgust” (King 574).
King told the clergy who that that he was going ‘too far’ or ‘too fast’ in Birmingham that when he started out in the civil rights movement in 1955 he had hoped for great support from white religious institutions in the South. He had received virtually none and this had been one of his great disappointments, since for evil to prosper it required the silence of good people. Despite all the obstacles and provocations, he took a strongly principled stand for nonviolence but warned whites that if peaceful change failed then the U.S, could expect a racial conflagration. This did occur later in the 1960s, with major riots in Watts in 1965, Detroit and Newark in 1967, and in over 100 cities in 1968 after King’s assassination, but as he feared, not only did these achieve nothing but they were actually the death knell for the civil rights movement. Certainly the anger and rage were there in the 1960s, and King could have ignited the conflagration very easily, but this he refused to do on moral and practical grounds. It was against his deepest religious convictions and he also argued that as 10% of the population blacks could not hope to win a violent confrontation in the United States. Therefore, even though it was extremely difficult, King’s nonviolent course of action probably achieved far more gains for civil rights in than those who were demanding more violent and militant actions.
WORKS CITED
King, Martin Luther, “Letter from Birminghan Jail” (1963). Eds. Laura Kerszner and Stephen R. Fandell, Patterns for College Writing: A Rhetorical Reader and Guide, 3rd Edition. Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2012: 566-78.
