Philosophical theories and their applications

Philosophical Legal Theory: Analyzing the Rhetoric in Civil Rights Speeches by King and Wallace

While Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK) is remembered as a hero in the Civil Rights struggle, it is important to keep in mind that, during his time period, he was vilified by many who claimed that his efforts to secure equality for African-Americans were somehow unnatural. One of his most vocal opponents was George Wallace (Wallace), the governor of Alabama, who ran on a platform of opposing integration. This analysis will examine speeches by each of these men, who were diametrically opposed in their approach to Civil Rights: MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech and Wallace's January 14, 1963 inaugural address. In their speeches, both men used the same philosophical and rhetorical appeals to try to forward the moral, legal, and ethical correctness of their respective positions.

The analysis will begin with a discussion of Wallace's speech, because, in many ways, it reflected the prevailing sentiment among white people in the Deep South during that time period. Wallace does not believe that positive law should trump natural law. He believes that whites have a God-given superiority that is part of natural law, and that these divinely given rights should be the source of law, which is a natural law perspective (Scoccia, 2007). Wallace not only suggests that the citizens do not have a duty to obey the law, but openly encourages the people of Alabama to resist, violently if need be, the federal government's attempts to integrate the schools in the area. He also suggests that the Supreme Court justices who made decisions that required integration lacked the power to do so (Wallace, 1963). He makes references to the South rising up and using its power against the tyranny of Washington (Wallace, 1963). However, Wallace does not suggest a wholesale abandonment of the law; he urges not only those in Alabama, but those who sympathize with them to vote to effectuate legal change (Walker, 1963). Wallace makes claims that the law should be used to promote the common good, by providing an example of removing liquor agents from the state of Alabama and using that revenue for things like education (Wallace, 1963). In fact, he goes on to define several areas, such as education, the ability of a farmer to make a living, and concern about the elderly as areas where the government should promote the common good; however, Wallace makes it clear that he is only referring to whites in his assessment of what is good for people. He goes on to cite the riots in Washington's schools following integration as one of the reasons that he fears integration would harm children in Alabama, at least white children (Wallace, 1963). Although his racial ideas are steeped in paternalism, he obscures this fact, and, instead, makes an argument against a centralized government that he characterizes as threatening personal autonomy, absolutely refusing to acknowledge the right that non-whites have to their own personal autonomy. He uses an appeal to morality, referring to whites as a "race of honor," which, of course, implies that non-whites are dishonorable, and, thus, that segregation is the means of preserving honor (Wallace, 1963).