MLK vs. Clergymen: Rhetoric and Ethics of the 1963 Letters

Introduction

The Civil Rights Movement was a seminal and pivotal moment in the history of the United States. It stands as one of two enormous shifts in the treatment and rights of African Americans, the other being the abolition of slavery in the 1860s. Roughly a century after emancipation, a remarkable exchange of letters took place between Martin Luther King Jr. and a group of Alabama clergymen. In April 1963, those clergymen sent a letter to Dr. King; King responded from jail just four days later. Analyzing what is said in these letters — how it is said, why it is said, and what rhetoric, tone, and ethics underlie each — reveals that while both letters have at least some shortcomings, Dr. King clearly occupies the moral and ethical high ground in this exchange.

Overview of the Two Letters

The crux of the clergymen's letter is that Dr. King was working against "common sense" and "law and order" through his statements, actions, and efforts. The clergymen argued that King was inciting unrest even though his protest activities were generally peaceful and non-violent. They actively insisted that King urge his fellow African Americans to withdraw support from the protests and demonstrations so that peace could be restored. The letter was not entirely one-sided, however. It also urged the police and the citizenry outside the protests to remain calm and not respond improperly to the demonstrations connected to the Civil Rights Movement that King was championing.

King's response was bold yet measured. He noted that he rarely replied to criticism directed at him, but felt compelled to respond given the tone, language, and assertions in the clergymen's letter. What followed was a point-by-point rebuttal of what King found wrong with the letter's logic. His basic premise was that because people of color were being treated as poorly as they were, remaining with the status quo was wholly unacceptable. He drew on Biblical references throughout — not surprisingly, given that he was a preacher and that his Christian faith was a cornerstone of his thought. Even so, his argument did not depend on scripture alone to make its point. King's letter was significantly longer, considerably more direct, and overwhelming in the weight of its moral instruction. In short, the two letters were diametrically opposed: the clergymen sought to suppress King's movement in the name of peace and law and order, while King's central retort was that the discrimination and bigotry of the era were themselves the antithesis of justice. Accordingly, he believed a remedy to that status quo was necessary before calm could or should be restored.

Logical Fallacies in the Clergymen's Letter

It is important to identify the fallacies present in these letters, and the most significant ones appear in the clergymen's letter. The clergymen invoked the language of "realistic" thinking and "law and order" to justify demanding that the race-related protests be drawn down. However, it stands to reason — particularly in historical context — that the prevailing status quo was not serving Black Americans in any meaningful way. This reality was precisely why Dr. King and others felt compelled to engage in protests and civil disobedience. The clergymen's response — that this was not the proper way to seek change — was false on its face. Had African Americans simply fallen back and obeyed the laws of the day, it would have perpetuated and extended the very conditions they were suffering under.

The status quo the clergymen sought to uphold was, in itself, direct injustice. Moreover, that status quo had been firmly in place in the United States since the nation's founding in the late eighteenth century. The Constitution and related founding documents proclaimed that all men were created equal, yet this principle was not even remotely honored in practice for the first two centuries of the nation's existence. The abolition of slavery in the 1860s was a step in the right direction, but the "laws" and "common sense" invoked as "law and order" in 1963 were discriminatory, cruel, and the very opposite of peaceful coexistence. This is the obvious and overarching fallacy that permeates the debate between Dr. King and the clergymen who dared to call him a rabble-rouser for pointing out the blatant injustice endured by African Americans in the 1950s and 1960s.

The clergymen's call for "honest and open" negotiation was also fallacious for the same reason — no such genuine negotiation was taking place. A drawdown of King's efforts would likely have only extended the suffering of Black Americans by removing the primary impetus for change. Furthermore, the letter's commendation of the community and police was a fallacy, given that those were the very institutions enforcing the bigotry in question — the clergymen simply lacked the candor to say so in plain terms. These and many other elements in the clergymen's language were, on their face, ethically indefensible.

Conclusion

There is a time and a place for civil disobedience, and a way to practice it without being hateful or lawless. Even when some individuals abuse the concept, peaceful civil disobedience has a legitimate and necessary role in democratic life. The era of Dr. King was unquestionably one of those times when it was both justified and essential. Maintaining law and order is important. However, when the laws themselves are clearly unjust and rooted in something soulless and unethical, those laws must evolve and change — something that eventually came to pass, in large part because of the courage and clarity of Martin Luther King Jr.'s moral vision.

Works Cited

TIU. "Alabama Clergymen's Letter to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr." moodle.tiu.edu. n.p., 2018. Web. 26 Feb. 2018.