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...

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…