Comparing Civil Disobedience And Letter From Birmingham Jail

Two different writers. Two different issues. Two different time periods. Two different races. One hundred years can make Henry David Thoreau’s essay “Civil Disobedience” and Martin Luther King's “Letter from Birmingham Jail” seem widely different from each other. Yet these two pieces are connected by a central purpose: they argue that United States citizens are being treated unfairly by their own government and they defend the practice of civil disobedience. Indeed, both Thoreau and King wrote their pieces to argue for the effectiveness of civil disobedience, but King wrote his letter to respond to racist civil laws, while Thoreau wrote his essay in response to fundamental flaws in the institutions of government.

A key difference in the purpose

About halfway through his letter, King plainly states that “an unjust law is one that is out of harmony with the moral law”. This is his general definition of an unjust law. He is not incredibly specific, but repeats it numerous times throughout, creating a sense of repetition of the definition. These are the kinds of laws people, specifically blacks, should civilly disobey. He continues to say that blacks should also disobey “any law that degrades your personality”. Here King focuses his definition to include that you should civilly disobey a law that affects you personally. He is stating that you should not disobey a law because it affects all blacks, but because it affects you. The laws he is referencing are specifically laws that are degrading to blacks, so he is indirectly telling blacks to revolt against the racially unjust laws that affect them. Later, King claims they should disobey laws that “a majority inflicts on a minority”. Again, King is indirectly implying that blacks should peacefully rebel against the racially unjust laws that target them. He is applying his definition of an unjust law in a general sense, but the dictation he uses alludes to the racial struggle that the blacks faced, as the whites represent the “majority” and the blacks represent the “minority”. Similarly, Thoreau argues for the use of civil disobedience in the

On the other hand, King does not call for such radicalism and instead insists that people should disobey a law if it “degrades” them personally. This viewpoint would not be viable because of the context in which each piece was written in. African Americans in the 1960’s were not in a position of strength, and King knew that if he called for a degree of radicalism similar to what Thoreau proposed that they would be swiftly silenced by the government. Thoreau knew that the degree of disobedience he proposed was necessary because the citizens during the 1840’s were in more of a position of strength because of the unpopular Mexican War and the tension of slavery. Therefore, Thoreau and King had to call for different degrees of civil disobedience to achieve their individual