Martin Luther King\'s Letter From

¶ … Martin Luther King's

"Letter from Birmingham Jail"

In 1963, Martin Luther King was arrested and jailed for demonstrating for civil rights in Alabama. While he was in prison, several clergy men addressed the situation and called for unity, noting that the fight for civil rights belong in the courts but not on the streets. King's letter is a response to their statements as well as a plea to all on both sides of the racial issue to consider the meaning of justice while respecting authority as much as possible. King's letter is considered an example of the classical argument because he appeals to all sides of the issue with logic as well as emotional appeal. His argument is sound, grounded, and, more than anything, it connects with both sides of the issue. King is addressing a situation and a group of people that are extremely divided. He did not simply want to appeal to African-Americans for they were already far too aware of their circumstance. He did want them to behave in a way that was rational but he also wanted to appeal to those that made and applied the law. Jo Farrar maintains that king uses the "classical appeals of ethos, logos, and pathos, and in language that appealed to the best in American Judeo-Christian values, King's 'letter' formed the blueprint for civil rights" (Farrar). King appeals to emotions, authority, and logic in order to present a case that is difficult to dispute from any angle.

Another reason why King's letter is so appealing is his ability to appeal to the emotions of his audience in a clam, reasonable manner. He is very aware that segregation is an emotionally charged subject and handles it in a calm, reasonable manner. He asks those on his side, "Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice?" (King). While is aware of the passion that African-Americans deal with when they face this subject, he wants them to remain calm so they can act in a manner that actually achieves results rather than inciting violence. He does not want his supporters to back away from the truth but he does not want them to fall into an endless circle of violence that gets them nowhere. He states that those who are brave enough to have broken free from the "paralyzing chains of conformity" (King) are significant to the cause because they share the "struggle for freedom" (King). He recognizes their efforts stating, "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" (King). King knew that the subject matter was clearly emotionally charged and he addressed it with a logical appeal to emotion.

King's letter is successful in that it appeals to authority, demonstrating ethos. King is no way wants to subvert or thwart authority. He wants more than anything to for the law to reach an agreement that is satisfactory. He mentions names and recognizes individuals who have fought for civil rights in order to support his argument. He appeals to the church by pointing out how they have been lax on the issue. He claims that the church has "blemished and scarred that body through social neglect and through fear of being nonconformists" (King). Keith Miller notes, "classical rhetoric directly or indirectly influenced every masterpiece of Western philosophy and theology that King's professors assigned him to read" (Miller 168). King knew that he had to present a case that was reasonable and logical rather in order for it to make an impact. Mia Klein notes that King's letter is "engaging because of its candor and its lack of affection; he appeals, if you will, to the life-wish rather than to the death-wish that would be implied in a tone characterized by defiance and aggression" (Klein 31). This aspect of the letter is incredibly important because King does not want to appear to be irrational to his opponents.

One of the logical appeals King makes in his letter revolves around the issue of just and unjust laws. In his opinion, the officers that arrested him were obeying an unjust law, pointing out that 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" (King). Here King is pointing out that those who being arrested were not even allowed the right to vote to put that law into action. This prompts him to ask, "Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state's segregation laws was democratically elected?" (King). Here, King is appealing to logic in that he is forcing his audience to realize that the law is flawed because it does represent the vote of all individuals involved. African-Americans were not allowed to vote and, as a result, were not given a representative voice. King wanted others to become aware of how unjust this act was and wrote, "Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters" (King). In addition, he wanted to emphasize that this type of injustice was occurring across the globe, noting that there are "counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered" (King). King wants the injustice exposed because it simply does not make logical sense. In a country, the majority should at least have the right to speak and vote. It seemed unconscionable that things would operate otherwise, leading him to ask, "Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured? Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application" (King). King follows up this assertion with more logic, appealing to his personal circumstance. Those who arrested him "exercised a degree of discipline in handing the demonstrators. In this sense, they have conducted themselves rather 'nonviolently' in public. But for what purpose? To preserve the evil system of segregation" (King). This argument and point-of-view is logical in that it points out the flaw in the laws of the land. Things seem backwards when we look at them from his perspective. He also adds, "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" (King). King is suggesting that the law is immoral and wrong and any means to keep that law are more immoral than the causes of those who fight for freedom.