Analysis Of Letter From Birmingham Jail

Letter from Birmingham jail Analysis

“Letter from a Birmingham Jail’ was written by Martin Luther King in the year 1963. This open letter was written by King from a Birmingham jail in Alabama, where he had been imprisoned for participating in the arrangement and organization of a peaceful protest. The protest was in opposition to racial segregation by Birmingham’s city government. King wrote his letter in response to criticisms from a number of white clergymen from Alabama. These clergymen believed that though racial discrimination and segregation were wrong, King’s method’s were not the way to fix the problem. Luther uses his experiences, knowledge and perspective to illustrate the troubles of the Black community. By building his credibility,

He starts of by introducing himself as the president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. Given that he’s directly addressing Christian clergymen, this introduction gives him a slight boost to his credibility because it relates them to himself via religious values. He also compares himself to the Christian figure Paul to refute the clergymen’s criticism that he should not be in Birmingham in the first place. King says “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.” (204). King builds up his credibility by both demonstrating his knowledge of Paul, and comparing himself to him in an effective way. By doing this, he boosts the power of his future arguments, while also refuting a criticism from the

He deals with the facts of the situation in a way his critics fail to and details the local political situation and the ramifications of the recent elections. The letter explains in detail why non-violent disobedience is the ideal way to proceed and refutes each element of the argument put forward by clergymen, one by one. For example, one of the criticisms from the clergymen was that King was breaking the law. King's argument against that was that just laws should be followed, while unjust laws should be openly and deliberately disobeyed. He then goes on in detail to explain what makes a law just or unjust. King says