Firstly, go and read the original letter from King. Google is your friend here, but this page has the formatting in the manner I reference it.
Secondly, this was an assignment for a college English class. I know this means that a metric butt-load of other students are working on similar projects. All that is to say: Don't plagiarize, you lazy jerks! If you can't read the twelve-ish page document and do your own work, go flip burgers the rest of your life.
Well, enough of that. For the rest of you who care, or are interested in academic work ...enjoy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Luther King Jr. attacks injustice, hypocrisy and inequality with such great fervor, one would hardly be considered inaccurate for mistaking his style for that of Paul the Apostle. Penning his great works from prison, to admonish and to build up his fellow workers, the forty-nine paragraph Letter From Birmingham Jail can be grouped neatly into thirteen chapters in which King constructs observations, arguments and counter arguments in an incredibly concise manner.
Jailed under the premise of "disturbing the peace", King responds to fellow religious leaders in the opening chapter of his letter. King takes this time to greet his community and lays out his reason for responding directly to his detractors. In the second chapter (2-5) he lays out the authority by which his group came to Birmingham. The great breadth of organizations that stand behind his actions overshadow the voices that reject his presence there. In the third paragraph, King makes one of many Biblical associations between the plight of blacks in America and the call of God upon his people to go and act on His behalf. This paragraph begins the preliminary thrust of the wrongness of injustice, and it is capped in the fourth paragraph with the words: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere". King also chastens southern leaders for deploring his actions in Birmingham, while ignoring the social unrest occurring around them.
Beginning in the third chapter he begins a rolling argument for action that builds with a timeline of wrongdoing; brutality from the current social environment. When negotiations and appeasement break down, the only remaining choice is to act in a manner that forces resolution. King lays out the method by which his group prepared themselves for sacrifice upon the altar of conviction. Carefully crafted and timed, King times the demonstration for maximum political impact. If Kings’ detractors held reservation for his actions, they were based on fear, not on evaluation of his tactics. Pivoting upon the assertion of Socrates that tension is a necessary step to social change, King folds the thought into the human need to rise from prejudice and racism. This thought further extends into King's call for action based on the greater human good. King points out the poor judgment in looking toward elected officials. He points out that officials are only there to maintain the status quo, not bring about sweeping change to society. People still fall to this faulty assumption, and the logic that King uses still holds value to this day. King anticipates the objections of some in his audience, and takes to task the claim that his group has acted in an untimely manner. To this King responds with the fact that the oppressor would never freely give up control over the oppressed people they control. To fortify the argument, King conjures the memory of the long struggle of the United States to gain freedom from their former masters.
The Just Law argument begins in the fifth chapter of the letter. There are legal and logical consequences to ideas. King takes the opportunity of the momentum of his letter to formulate the ideas that will support the remainder of his thoughts here. Obviously, laws are essential to the continuing and orderly function of society. One could not even properly support the idea of the legitimacy of the existence of laws and law keeping outside of a society that brings its structure from the idea of God and His sovereignty. King is able, from this precept, to argue that a law could be unjust and therefore be contrary to the welfare of a nations’ citizens. In his usual manner, King concisely places his entire argument within three short sentences. "How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law" (16). Then, in the seventeenth paragraph, King further cements his argument. Unjust laws are modeled as laws the majority uses to oppress a minority. The sheer size of the majority lends itself to such abuses, but it gives no absolution to the wrongdoing no matter how many people agree with it. To balance the idea of obedience to the law and to the idea that a law can be wrong, King argues for logical consistency from his readers. Breaking any law, even one that is baseless, one must accept the consequences of that action. Again, King conjures a Biblical reference to his thought process. In the Book of Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refuse to obey an unjust order to worship a false idol. They themselves must pass through the fire in a literal manner. King and those who serve with him, pass through a fire of trials in their own right.
Switching in the sixth chapter to an argument against the status quo and lethargic white society, King displays his displeasure at a people he titles: "the white moderate" (22). Rather than blame the outright racist forces in America, King deftly positions the hypocritical mentality of the whites that claimed to support him under a harsh light of analysis. While King's detractors openly opposed his methods due to their own variety of cowardice, the white community that otherwise purported to support King failed to follow through in action. Choosing rather to have peace over justice, the shallow "white moderate" disappoints King in a manner that is worse than those who speak against him. This section of the letter also changes the tone of the letter as King turns from apologetics to admonishment and drifts into varying degrees of condemnation that will last through the thirty-third paragraph at the end of the ninth chapter of the letter. Within this argument, King makes a case for action based on Biblical authority and a desire for a measured response to their plight. In the twenty-fifth paragraph, he closes with the idea that man and God are partners in the development of a society and the promise of democracy. Moving into the eighth chapter, King deals with the accusation of extremism. Extremism is a necessity in this instance, and King makes the argument that extremism is necessary to make a change in the general posture of society. "Do-nothingism" from the black community is just as bad as "the white moderate". A moderate, non-violent approach to gaining mindshare of the American people and winning their support is the most effective way to win the day.
The argument for justification for action from great men of history comes in the ninth chapter. Oppression is the great thread of shared experience in all of human history. King ties together not only the suffering of the slaves brought from Africa and other locations, but also weaves in the Israelites’ suffering under the Pharaoh and subsequent wanderings while waiting for the promised land. Paragraph thirty pivots into a conglomerate of historical and monumental figures that stood for justice and righteousness in the face of overwhelming odds. Jesus, Amos, Paul, Martin Luther, John Bunyan, Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson all are considered, on a very basic level, to be pillars of greatness that moved the world forward with their ideas and convictions. King calls his followers to continue on in this manner and for his detractors to see this as a pedigree that strengthens his position.
King changes tone once again in the tenth chapter. After his previous paragraphs, solidified his justification, King returns to a personal narrative. Now that the mindset of the reader is in a manner that is eager for someone to bring justice to the world, he paints a picture of how he came to be a part of this great movement. Without naming her specifically, it is not difficult to catch the reference to Rosa Parks and her refusal to move to the back of the bus. Though many readers of the time might not have known her by name yet, her actions were certainly seen as a catalyst for greater civil rights. Disappointed by the lack of action in white churches, and their empty platitudes, King comes away from these people with the view that they inhabit a faith with no substance and no action. This disappointment drives King toward greater personal action and personal responsibility for the rights of black Americans.
Lamenting over the current state of the American church, King makes an argument against the laxity of the religious. Apathy in Americas’ churches is as guilty for doing nothing as any racist who oppresses minorities. Although softer in tone than his previous admonishment, the words sting the visage of the ineffectual American church. In the forty-first paragraph, he references themes of the New Testament book of Revelation; calling for the church to recapture their sacrificial spirit, much in the same way that Jesus chastises the church of Ephesus for having "...left your first love" (Revelation 2:4). The American church is called by King to endure and experience in the suffering of the civil rights movement as part of their duty and as a part of their destiny. King is sure of the outcome of the struggle because the moral impetus for action is greater than any opposition. In addition, because of the very Constitutional authority by which the country operates, King sees the destiny of the civil rights movement as the fulfillment of those earlier American promises.
Nearing completion, and as a method to tie of the loose ends of his actions, King makes an argument for action based on sacred values and human dignity. King deals again with the hypocrisy of his detractors for their comments and lack of substantive action. By spreading the reactions between arguments and immediately following examples of Biblical authority, the reader and the detractor alike are faced with the choice to either agree with King or to reject the very foundation they purportedly operate upon.
King clearly concedes that he is the subject of much criticism, and no stranger to questioning. By choosing to answer his critics and establishing himself as a leader with the religious community, King justifies his responsibility to act and to appear as requested to be in Birmingham. He cements his Biblical precedent for actions and makes clear that he is well established in method and meaning in his actions. King explains the method and mentality behind actions, gives the hIstorical precedent for action, and gives a reasonable and rational explanation as to why action must be taken now. Looking back, this letter alone would be a great catalyst for greater civil rights and can easily be seen in its own right as a highly successful letter.
Works Cited
King. Jr., Martin Luther. “ Letter from Birmingham.” 1963. http://www.econ.brown.edu/fac/Glenn_Loury/louryhomepage/teaching/Ec%20137/Ec%20137%20new%20material/material_2004/Letter%20from%20Birmingham%20Jail.htm
