Civil Disobedience Against Unjust Laws

MLK vs. Clergymen
The Civil Rights movement was a seminal and pivotal moment in the history of the United States. To be honest, it is one of two huge shifts in the treatment and rights of African-Americans, with the other being the abolition of slavery in the 1860’s. Roughly a century later is the time period where the letters traded back and forth between Martin Luther King Jr. and certain clergymen can be seen. Indeed, some clergymen in Alabama sent a letter to Dr. King in April of 1963. King responded to the letter in kind, from jail, a scant four days later. It is important to analyze what is being said in these letters, how it is being said, why it is being said and the overall rhetoric, tone and ethics that belie the two letters. While there are at least some failings in both letters, Dr. King clearly has the moral and ethical high ground when comparing the two parties that were exchanging letters.
Analysis
The crux of the clergymen letter is that Dr. King is working against “common sense” and “law and order” when it comes to his statements, actions and efforts (TIU). The clergymen go on to say that King is inciting unrest even as his protesting actions are generally peaceful and non-violent. The clergymen actively insist that King urge his fellow “Negros” to withdraw support from the protests and uproar so that peace can be restored (TIU). The letter is not entirely one-sided against Dr. King. Indeed, the letter urges that the police and citizenry exterior of the protests remain calm and not respond improperly to the demonstrations and other efforts related to the civil rights movement that King was championing (TIU).
King’s response is bold yet calm at the same time. Indeed, he notes that he rarely responds to the criticism that is lobbed his way. However, he adds that he feels compelled to respond given the tone, verbiage and assertions in the letter. What follows is a point-by-point rebuttal to what King feels is wrong with the logic of the letter that the clergymen offered. His basic premise is that since people of color are being treated as poorly as they are, this means that remaining with the status quo is wholly unacceptable. He does delve into Biblical references as he goes. However, he is a preacher and his Christian faith is clearly a cornerstone of what he thinks and feels. Beyond that, what he is asserting does not really need the infusion of scripture to make the point. Dr. King’s is much longer, is much blunter and is overwhelming in terms of the lesson that is trying to be taught. In short, the claims in the letters are diametrically opposed. The clergymen are trying to beat back what King is doing in the name of peace and law and order (TIU). King’s primary retort is that the presence of the discrimination and bigotry that was going on at that time is the antithesis of justice and common sense. Thus, he felt that a remedy to that status quo was necessary before calm could or should be restored (TIU).
It should be identified as to what fallacies exist. The major one that exists with the letter of the clergymen is clear. The clergymen use the term “realistic” and “law and order” as a justification to have the race-related protests by Dr. King and others to be drawn down (TIU). However, it stands to reason, at least in historical context, that the status quo was not serving black people at all. Thus, Dr. King and others felt the need to start engaging in protests and civil disobedience to make their point. The response from the clergymen was that this was not the way to go about things. The fallacy is that this statement is false on its face and that if indeed the African-Americans fell back and decided to follow the laws of that day, it would just perpetuate and continue what was already happening. The status quo that the clergymen were trying to uphold was direct injustice on its face. Further, that status quo had been in full effect in the United States since its founding in the late 1700’s. The Constitution and other related documents talked about how all men were created equal. However, this was not remotely true in real-world practice in the United States for the first two centuries of its existence. The abolition of slavery in the 1860’s was a step in the right direction. However, the “laws” and “common sense” that was called “law and order” were discriminatory, cruel and the completely opposite of peace (TIU). This is the obvious and overarching fallacy that permeates the debate that existed between Dr. King and the clergymen who would dare to call him a rabble-rouser for pointing out the blisteringly obvious about the plight of African-Americans in the United States circa the 1950’s and 1960’s. The statement about “honest and open” negotiation, for the same reason, is also clearly a fallacy as no such thing was going on (TIU). Further, a drawdown in the efforts of Dr. King would have just extended the suffering, in all likelihood, as the impetus for change would be removed and reduced. The “commending” of the community and police is a fallacy as they were the institutions and people that were enforcing the aforementioned bigotry (TIU). The detail is that the clergymen just didn’t have the chutzpah to say it in so many words. This and many other elements in the verbiage of the clergymen were unethical on their face (TIU).
When it comes to rebuttal, both parties try to make use of this tactic. Clearly, the clergymen were trying to rebut what Dr. King was going and saying. King responded in an impassioned and articulate way about what he thought was horribly wrong with the argument of the clergymen. He used logic, religion and history as the foundation for this voluminous and extensive rebuttal. The religion part of the argument may enrage or incense some people on the grounds that keeping things secular is the wiser course. However, the country was very religious at the time and all of the people within this debate were of that persuasion to begin with. As such, criticism for invoking religion over logic (in any way) is not really something that can be said about this situation due to the people involved and the messages that came from those same people (TIU).
With all of the above noted, it is clear that the content, logic, ethics, message and rhetoric of the Dr. King letter was far superior than what the clergymen had to say. It is clear as crystal that the clergymen were just trying to sustain and restore the status quo rather than allowing necessary and justifiable change to take place. The whole ideas of “separate but equal” and segregation in general were terribly unjust and never should have started (TIU). It is that underlying belief that drove Dr. King. The clergymen were just part of the larger mass that wanted things to keep on as they were. For the clergymen to assail Dr. King in light of the terse and disgusting words that African-Americans were subject to at that time is something that would make many people incredulous, to say the least. The reference of Dr. King to the n-word is perhaps the most poignant example of this. Dr. King was assailing the fact that black people were considered “lesser” and below white people (TIU). They were held to be unworthy of using the same bathrooms, fountains and housing complexes. For the clergymen to even try to justify or restore that, even if it was indirect and half-hearted, is something that is devoid of logic, love and empathy. The clergymen spoke from a position of bigotry but cloaked their insidious tripe in different terms and paradigms. King was blunt, extremely to the point and wholly unapologetic for the message he was trying to convey (TIU).
Conclusion
There is a time and a place for that and there is a way to do it without being hateful or lawless. Even if some people abuse the practice or concept, there is a time and a place for civil disobedience that is peaceful. The time and state of affairs of Dr. King was certainly one of those times. Keeping law and order is something that is important. However, when the laws are themselves clearly unjust and based on something that is soulless and unethical, that means the laws need to evolve and change, something that eventually happened in large part due to King.
Works Cited
TIU. "Alabama clergymen’s letter to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr." moodle.tiu.edu. n.p., 2018.
Web. 26 Feb. 2018.