If you have "no place to go," come here!

Dr. King In 1963

leah's picture

On this day of celebration that we were gifted with the life of Martin Luther King, tragically short as it was, I thought it might be apropos to look back at one of his pre-"I have a dream" speeches. It wasn't one that he orated. He couldn't. He was in jail, the only place to be for a patriot like Dr. King in the Birmingham GA of April, 1963.

It was a written communication, but when you read it you can hear his voice, his early voice, which turns out to be not so different from his later voice, although it is also true that Dr. King grew and changed, became bigger, bolder, as did his view of what issues required the attention of true American patriots determined "to rise up and live out the true meaning..." of our American creeds, even in the face of criticism, of isolation, of backlashes, and of continuing, and even worsening, inequalities.

His "Letter From A Birmingham Jail," was written in response to an open letter to Dr. King signed by a group of white clergyman, mostly Christian and Protestant, although one Rabbi signed his name to it, criticizing the civil rights movement and Dr. King's role in it. Here is how he begins his reply:


My Dear Fellow Clergymen:

While confined here in the Birmingham city jail, I came across your recent statement calling present activities "unwise and untimely." Seldom do I pause to answer criticism of my work and ideas. If I sought to answer all the criticisms that cross my desk, my secretaries would have little time for anything other than such correspondence in the course of the day, and I would have no time for constructive work. But since I feel that you are men of genuine good will and that your criticisms are sincerely set forth, I want to try to answer your statement in what I hope will be patient and reasonable terms.

I think I should indicate why I am here in Birmingham, since you have been influenced by the view which argues against "outsiders coming in." I have the honor of serving as President of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, an organization operating in every southern state, with headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia. We have some eighty-five affiliated organizations across the South, and one of them is the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights. Frequently we share staff, educational and financial resources with our affiliates. Several months ago the affiliate here in Birmingham asked us to be on call to engage in a nonviolent direct-action program if such were deemed necessary. We readily consented, and when the hour came we lived up to our promise. So I, along with several members of my staff, am here because I was invited here. I am here because I have organizational ties here.

But more basically, I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried their "thus saith the Lord" far beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco-Roman world, so am I compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid.

Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.(all emphasis are mine)

So we can see that Dr. King knew how to reach out in civility to those in his own community, the Baptist one in this case, who held opposing opinions of his actions. And he also knew how to draw the distinctions between himself and those same people, even harsh distinctions, and he was ready to acknowledge that his actions might well intensify the tensions disagreement gives rise to, and he was unafraid to argue that tensions, difference and even crises were not merely the price of progress, but might well be inseparable from the search for truth, equality and justice.

You deplore the demonstrations taking place in Birmingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails so express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations. I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. It is unfortunate that demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham, but it is even more unfortunate that the city's white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative.


You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit-ins, marches, and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent-resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and halftruths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.

The purpose of our direct-action program is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue.

The ministers had asked in their own open letter why now; why such impatience, why not give the newly elected Major of Birmingham and chance to make changes? In response, King was clear on his own view of how change happens:

My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain in civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral that individuals.

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor, it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct-action campaign that was "well timed" in view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."

What of Dr. King's paradoxical willingness to break laws?

You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."

Now, what is the difference between the two? 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 or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of Harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I-it" relationship for an "I-thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus is it that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.

Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal.

Let me give another explanation. 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. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state's segregation laws was democratically elected?


Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in it's application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.

I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.

We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. 'Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's anti-religious laws.

I think my favorite part of the letter happens when Dr. King takes up the issue of the "white moderate:"

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Councilor or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says, "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another mans freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro the wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating that absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all it ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light injustice must be exposed with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion, before it can be cured.

The white clergyman who had written their own open letter had been at pains to admit that they recognized "Negro" Americans had legitimate complaints about their treatment, but they chastised Dr. King for what they viewed as his counterproductive extremism, which was provoking extremism even among decent whites who wished to see an end to the oppression of black folks in the south. This was King's response:

But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus and extremist for love: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." Was not Amos an extremist for justice: "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like am ever-flowing stream." Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Was not Martin Luther an extremist: "Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God." And John Bunyan: "I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience." And Abraham Lincoln: "This nation cannot survive half slave and half free." And Thomas Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal . . . ." So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? In that dramatic scene on Calvery's hill three men were crucified. We must never forget that all three were crucified for the same crime -- the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other, Jesus Christ, was an extremist for love, truth, and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment. Perhaps the South, the nation, and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.

You'll will have noticed by now Dr. King's constant religious references. In the usual right-tilted SCLM narrative, this toleration on the part of the left for King's religiosity is seen as at best an inconsistency, and at worst vile hypocrisy. It was and is neither. King's rhetoric was always inclusive to the maximum degree, and even his biblical references, whether to the old or the new testament never made someone like myself feel excluded, because King consciously made sure that didn't happen. He made the connection between Christian principles and universal truths, without demanding from his listeners agree that truth, justice, and salvation depended on a personal relationship with a Christian conception of Jesus. Dr. King's references were multiple, and yes, multicultural.

Far from being hypocrisy, the ease with which his non-parishioner followers basked in his rhetoric and his leadership, often while sitting in houses of worship, is an indication of just how wrong the media narrative is, and just how hypocritical and misleading is the right-wing parable of a public square shorn of its churches and its freedom to practice religion by extremist religion-hating secular humanists.

The "Letter" contains much else; it is worth a full reading, as is everything Dr. King said and wrote, and one of the reasons for that was the way in which words and actions were, for him, immutably interconnected.

Interestingly in the light, or lack thereof, of recent discussions about who can/should/will represent the liberal-progressive movement in the 2008 elections, the title of the published statement which provoked Dr. King's own letter was "A CALL FOR UNITY."

Let me add this caveat; this post is not meant to claim Dr. King for any particular candidate for the Democratic 2008 presidential campaign; I myself am still undecided, discouraged on behalf of my first choice, Edwards, fearful about Clinton's electability, and confused by troubling aspects of Obama's campaign.

No votes yet


Submitted by lambert on

Because I do notice the "justice" half of the equation missing from the Unity appeal.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

is, considering that we have hundreds of QOTD entries by now, coincidental to the point of invoking the supernatural if one believes in such:

Great God! Is injustice nothing? Is honor nothing? Is even pecuniary interest to be sacrificed to this insane and vulgar hate? But it is said that this is the “white man’s country.” Not so, sir. This is the red man’s country by natural right and the black man’s by virtue of his suffering and toil. Your fathers by violence drove the red men out and forced the black man in. The children of the black man have enriched the soil by their tears, sweat and blood. Sir, we were born here, and here we chose to remain…. I elect to stay on the soil on which I was born, and on the plot of ground which I have fairly bought and honestly paid for. Don’t advise me to leave, and don’t add insult to injury by telling me it’s for my own good; of that I am to be the judge. It is vain that you talk to me about “two races” and their “mutual antagonism.” In the matter of rights there is but one race and that is the human race.

— Robert Purvis, 1862, in response to a proposal by government emigration agent Samuel Clarke Pomeroy to colonize American blacks to Central America.

Can we note the date, suspect that Dr. King was perfectly acquainted with, if not this precise quote then a plethora of others from the same period with the same general point, and suspect it was from these that he felt complete justification in saying

I have yet to engage in a direct-action campaign that was “well timed” in view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word “wait!” It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This “Wait” has almost always meant “Never.” We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that “justice too long delayed is justice denied."

From 1862 to 1963 was a long time to wait. He didn't, for which we should all be grateful. I suspected then and still believe today that without his strength of character and devotion to the cause of nonviolence we would have had Civil War II in this country with consequences beyond imagining.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

With Edwards effectively out we won't have a progressive leader. Thus, we must ask who's most likely to fight for our principles, which in itself will unify the left? Krugman states that the best way to judge a candidate is how they respond to criticism of their policies. Obama, unlike the other two, embraces the flaws even more and attacks opponents from the right (dividing the left), even lying (e.g., he earlier insisted his health care was universal).

Clinton followed Edwards' lead policy- and rhetoric-wise but she led by unveiling a economic plan the other day, which combined with her fighting rhetoric against the right (She's ready to "go to the mat" for health care. Lucha libre: Hillary edition! ) shows she has a core set of progressive principles.

I have some concern about Hillary's possible nomination, but if she can rumble with the right she'll have as good a chance as anyone due to her domestic policy competence and potential to draw in female voters. If she allows the right to frame the election on national security--Iraq and experience--I fear she'll lose.* But so would Obama.

*Mind you, the press narrative on "national security" is already anti-reality so...

Submitted by lambert on

As a Yellow Dog Democrat, I want him in there. It's a long way to the convention, and even a week is a long time in politics. As long as he's in there punching, he has a chance.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.