Notes on Ball & Dagger reader
Martin Luther King, Jr. (1963)
"Letter from Birmingham Jail"

Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-1968)

Chronology and context

Chronic, widespread racism & segregation, both de jure and de facto. Slavery, then a brief period of improvement after the Civil War, then continued repression.
The "Atlantic Charter" (July 1941) pledge by the United States and Great Britain to free colonies after WWII. Widespread service by Blacks in the military. Black WWII veterans were returning to a racist system after having risked their lives for the country; even white WWII veterans were returning with relatively little support for racism. Truman orders desegregation of the military during the Korean War.
Civil Rights Movement (understood as a popular movement, not just an interest group). Marches, demonstrations. Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954 (calling for desegregation with the vague standard of "all deliberate speed"), followed by the South's "massive resistance" to the decision's implementation.
Long history of Blacks bargaining from weakness
Relative economic good time up until this point either not shared (creating resentment) or achieved (and so allowing activism)
The long indifference of the Eisenhower administration, followed by the promise of the Kennedy administration's being more supportive.
Colonies being freed (e.g., Nigeria in 1960).
USSR hammering the United States for our racism.
Riots in Detroit, Harlem, Watts.

King's thesis

Background: King was under a lot of pressure, both political and personal. Politically, the majority (white) culture was not used to the demonstrations and civil disobedience, having just come out of the relatively quiescent 1950s. Furthermore, King was being whipsawed between 1. traditional Black leaders and 2. the more militant Nation of Islam (a.k.a. the "Black Muslims"), on the other. The traditional leaders had made their accommodations with the white power structure and were concerned that King was going to destroy what they felt they had accomplished. (Not to mention their fear that they would be replaced.) The Nation of Islam (and, later, militant groups like the Black Panthers) would reject King's nonviolence as futile, even Uncle Tom-ish. King also needed to think about the response of whites, who were also divided; he had to consider whether 3. sympathetic whites would be alienated and whether 4. neutral whites would be mobilized against the movement. King was also under pressure because 5. the FBI knew about his liaisons with other women — recall that he was married to Coretta Scott King — and could use that knowledge against him when they chose.

As you can probably tell from the letter, King found himself in the situation, "Damned if I do; damned if I don't". "If I don't do anything," he could mutter to himself, "then I'm doing nothing against the existing brutality and discrimination, which has no foreseeable end. The law is being used to oppress us. On the other hand, if I do something about it, then I'm seen as an anarchist or lawbreaker." He was particularly frustrated by the response of Southern white moderates (especially including the clergymen to whom he is responding) to the plain injustice of segregation:

These "moderates" were criticizing him for breaking the laws. To them, King appeared a wild-eyed radical, even an anarchist. (J. Edgar Hoover, the powerful director of the FBI, was convinced that King was a communist and had the FBI snoop and play dirty tricks on him.)
"Moderates" praised the (brutal) response of the Birmingham police to "keep order" and "prevent violence". (Note that the name of the chief of the Birmingham police, "Bull" Connor, is now a byword for brutal, official repression.)
"Moderates" held him to be an "outsider", a "rabble-rouser", an "outside agitator" coming to Birmingham to stir up trouble.
"Moderates" said that the demonstrations were "unwise and untimely" — that the demonstrations created ill will and resentment and made it more difficult for the moderates to support his cause.
The demonstrations put the new mayor of Birmingham (and his administration) in a corner, where any concessions they made, no matter how just, would be seen as "caving in" to pressure — and illegal pressure, at that. (As, in our own day, the slogan is, "No negotiations with terrorists.")
King and his fellow demonstrators seemed hypocritical. On the one hand they were calling for people to obey the law as set forth by the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education, but on the other hand they were then turning around and breaking the law when it suited their purposes.

How does King answer them? Taking the above points in the same order:

King points out that he is not a radical but rather a voice for non-violence in a situation in which others (e.g., the Nation of Islam) believed a violent response by Blacks was legitimate and even called-for.
He points out the brutality of the police and the court system generally, both in their treatment of Blacks generally and in their treatment of the (non-violent) demonstrators particularly.
He points out that he was invited to Birmingham by the local branch of his organization, and that in any case, the issue of oppression has no boundaries. ("No one is free when others are oppressed.")
He points out that Blacks — of course he used the term common then, "the Negro" — had waited for 340 years for their freedom, and that in any case, the record of broken promises made it appear that they would have to wait another 340 years before anything would be done.
As far as the difficulties of the mayor were concerned ... see the previous comment. Basically, King had given up on anything happening without pressure. He says that oppressors never give up their power voluntarily.
Finally, he asserts that he is showing his subordination to the law both by his open breaking of it and by his willingness to go to jail for his "crime", but that he is not morally obligated to obey unjust laws.

The last argument is the big one, and King approaches the issue from several different directions. He mentions Martin Buber's argument for people to have "I-Thou" relationships, as opposed to the "I-It" relationships contemplated by segregation. He mentions the injustice of laws that were specifically designed to oppress Blacks, laws that were passed without the participation of Blacks, even good laws that were (mis-)used to oppress Blacks. He mentions the Biblical precedent of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refusing to obey Nebuchadnezzar's law. He mentions the Boston Tea Party. He mentions the refusal of the early Christians to obey repressive Roman laws, even in the face of death. He points out, by way of contrast, that lots of very bad things have been done "legally" — starting with the Holocaust.

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION

Quiz question: What prompted King's letter? To whom is he writing, specifically?

OTHER, MISCELLANEOUS LECTURE NOTES

The key issue in King's letter is whether and if so, in what circumstances it is morally acceptable to deliberately break the law. King distinguishes between "good law" and "bad law", but how can we distinguish in practice? Even if we were to agree with King that breaking Jim Crow laws was o.k., how do we get off the slippery slope that this gives rise to? Do we stop paying taxes because we disagree with something the government does with them? Can we try to disable the weapons that many people consider essential to our national security, simply because we think they are immoral? Who gets to decide? The answer that "each person decides for h/herself" seems to lead to anarchy, because people who lack good moral judgment might find a justification in this doctrine that they can decide they don't like the laws. On the other hand, we need to remember that our own Founding Fathers were violent outlaws and traitors when they took up arms against British rule. And we might remember also that Hitler's killing of the Jews was perfectly legal within the context of the Nazi race laws, but many or most people would say that those laws could rightly be violated. (Whether one would have the courage to do so is a separate question.)

Some people argue that their willingness to pay the legal penalty for their actions (i.e., paying a fine and/or going to jail) makes those actions o.k. But this is problematic, on several counts. First, do we really think it is o.k. to, say, kill someone if one is willing to go to jail for it? (Even if the state has capital punishment, does the fact that I am willing to die make it o.k. for me to kill someone else?) Is it o.k. for me to drive 150 mph down I-35 just because I'm willing to pay the fine for speeding? Second, the justification is also problematic because if a law truly is unjust, then why should we accept going to jail for breaking it? Third, there is something sanctimonious and self-righteous about declaring that one is so morally privileged that one can break the bond between us without acknowledging and apologizing to the other.