Letter from Birmingham Jail: Persuasive Analysis

Dr. King's essay "Letter from Birmingham Jail" is a direct response to criticism he recieved for leading a civil rights protest against segregation. The letter addresses the criticism directly and in a careful manner. He does not disregard the criticism - he uses it to his advantage. King boldly points out that the criticism he was recieving was for leading a protest, not for protesting injustice. He declares that "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" so as to justify the protest. He criticizes that his fellow clergymen believe that his protest is both "unwise and untimely." He notes that his people have taken the back of the hand in their struggle for equality for years and that they have always been told to wait to no avail. He notes that "privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily." He then goes on to address the key points in the criticisms directly. He then launches into his counter arguements so as to dismantle any arguement that might be used against him. The best example is when he asks the rhetorical question "How can you advocating breaking some laws and obeying others?" Once he presents this question he systematically answers it by pointing out that there are two types of laws: just and unjust laws. He points out that just laws should be observed and cites St. Augustine by declaring that "an unjust law is no law at all." He does not seek to use ad hominem attacks to further his own arguement and instead uses historical examples and logic to reason with his readers. His most compelling part of the argument is his earnestness however. At the end of the "letter" he states that he hopes to meet with each of the clergymen who critized him, as a "fellow Christian" and not a civil rights leader. It serves to show that his only motivation is equality. The right to stand next to others and be acknowledged as an equal. He uses emotion and reason effectively in an arguement in order to convince others that his cause is just and that his imprisonment is not. He asserted that nonviolent civil disobedience was the only way to achieve true civil rights and that the fight for equality could not remain solely in the hands of the courts but also needed to be taken to the streets in a peaceful and respectful manner.