Analysis Of Letter From Birmingham Jail By Dr. Martin Luther King

An argument is made up of two aspects: premises and a conclusion. In many pieces of literature, even those primarily persuasive, the breaking down of these arguments can be unclear with each part being difficult to extract. When this happens, the magnitude of the logic or argument is lessened. In contrast, when the reasoning and conclusion of an argument are obvious, it leaves an impact on the reader that can be made in no other way. This is perfectly demonstrated by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in his Letter from Birmingham Jail. This short document is composed of sequential arguments, each one logically leading to the next, all containing distinct justifications with well-thought-out conclusions. The document itself is written to address statements

In particular, he answers two general criticisms, making the response to each critique one premise to the argument that these protests are informed. He primarily addresses the idea the clergymen had, that it is useless to do direction action as opposed to negotiation. King counters this by explaining that without direct action, no negotiations will be made. Previously, the community had refused to engage in negotiation. The only solution the African American community could find is direction action through sit- ins and marches, which creates a tension that forces the community to face the issue. “The purpose of our direct-action program is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation” (166). The second criticism King accosts relating to the “unwise” nature of his protests, is one about the dedication he has to them. People viewed him breaking some laws and advocating to obey others as paradoxical. He simply points out that there are two types of laws, just and unjust, and just as it’s one’s moral duty to obey a just law, it is similarly one’s moral duty to disobey an unjust law. King uses several paragraphs to define what differentiates the two, but the major ideas are as follows. A just law is one that conforms with the moral law or law of God; a just law is one that uplifts the human spirit; a just

King lays are ones to support the argument that the direct action protests are, infact, timely. He begins by addressing the criticism that he hasn’t given the new city administration time to act, meaning the protests are too early. King answers this by saying both the new and old administration are “segregationists, dedicated to maintaining the status quo” (166), and therefore must be provoked just as much before any action will be made. He then reminds the clergymen that civil disobedience of this nature is not unheard of. Citing characters from the biblical Book of Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, King explaines that they, too, were in refusal to obey the law when a higher moral law was a stake, in a context that is easy for the audience to agree with. As emphasis to this point he cites other acts of civil disobedience that are regarded today as being noble such as the Boston Tea Party or the Hungarian freedom fighters. The second justification he makes is the that it is never the wrong time to do what is right. He points out that time is neutral and can always be either constructively or destructively used. Human progress never occurs on its own as time passes; people have to put in work to make it happen, and when they put in the work, it will. “Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of human dignity”