Peaceful resistance to laws is positive for a free society. Take the opposite of peaceful resistance: violence. If a law is thought to be oppressive, violent resistance to it accomplishes nothing good. Violence is not conducive at all for a free society; there is already too much violence elsewhere. Violence begets violence, which leads to chaos.
The fight for civil rights went on for at least a century, and certain leaders in the movement had different ways of getting people to listen. Two different leaders fighting for the same thing were Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr. Malcolm X believed in violence to get what he wanted, and that violence caused nothing but grief for the people targeted. King’s marches, bus boycotting, and speeches were peaceful. It was a long road and a
…show more content…
In the letter, he wrote, “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.” King was saying not to openly defy a law, but to peacefully do so, and in accepting the punishment, that might appeal to the conscience of the people.
King also wrote, “For there is the more excellent way of love and nonviolent protest. I am grateful to God that, through the influence of the Negro church, the way of nonviolence became an integral part of our struggle. If this philosophy had not emerged, by now many streets of the South would, I am convinced, be flowing with blood.” Nonviolence in the heart of the struggle prevented a lot of bloodshed, according to King. That is indeed true. Keeping the belief of nonviolence in mind helped keep many of the supporters of civil rights from going over the deep end into