Refutation in letter from birmingham jail

MLK ON CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE In his “Letter from Birmingham Jail” (1963) addressed to Christian and Jewish clergy, Martin Luther King offers a defense of civil disobedience, both in this particular case and as a general policy. He has several goals:   He wants to justify “non-violent direct action sitting.” For example, he wants to defend the moral right of black people to sit in places reserved for “Whites only" and refusing to leave until they are arrested. He offers an argument that against the principle (apparently defended by many members of the clergy) that “Outsiders do not have a right to participate in the political or moral life of a community.” King’s response: unjust laws are never purely local in their effects. For one thing, they indicate that the overarching system (e.g. federal law) has structural problems with it; these problems may well result in problems for many people. King’s essay also argues for a distinction between legality and morality. He notes that there are plenty of cases (e.g., Nazi Germany, Ancient Rome, Biblical stories, etc.) in which obeying a law could be immoral. He thinks that this can happen even in a democracy. That is, the mere fact that a majority has voted for a law does not mean that you are morally obliged to obey that law. BACKGROUND TO KING’S LETTER “History is the long and tragic story of the fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups are more immoral than individuals.” While the history of race relations in the US (and especially in the states like Alabama, where King is writing from) is long and complex, King mentions a number of people and thinkers that are worth noting:     Colonial Times and Revolutionary War. Slavery was an issue from the beginning of the United States (during the Revolutionary War, several British leaders promised to end slavery if it won, which may have helped convince Southern neutrals and loyalists to join the rebels). In the original drafts of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson (who was himself a slaveholder) outlined a commitment to eliminating slavery in the US (so, he meant “all men are created equal” quite literally). This draft was vetoed by the Southern representatives in the Continental Congress. Jefferson hoped that slavery would slowly die of its own accord, but it actually expanded between 1776 and 1861. The UK outlawed slavery in 1833. The US Civil War (1861 to 1865) led to the end of legalized slavery. After the war, the federal government engaged in a project of “Reconstruction” aimed at, among other things, establishing the rights of African Americans in the southern states. This was extremely unpopular among southern whites, however, and northern politicians eventually lost the political will to enforce it. The infamous Supreme Court decision Plessy v Ferguson (1896) upheld laws instituting racial segregation, so long it was “separate but equal.” Again, the hope was that southern states would come to equality “on their own,” but the decision effectively destroyed the political power of southern African Americans until 1964. Brown v Board of Ed (1954) held that racial segregation was “inherently unequal.” It overturned Plessy v Fergusson. Many southern states resisted this ruling, sometimes violently. In Alabama (shortly after King’s letter), the KKK bombed a church, and killed four girls. The governor George Wallace swore that he would support "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever,” and tried his best to block the desegregation of schools. President John F. Kennedy took control of the Alabama National Guard, and ordered it to help enforce desegregation. This is around the same time that King was arrested (in Alabama) for leading nonviolent protests aimed at ending state and city laws that were still in place. Afterward. King’s actions in Birmingham (and the subsequent KKK violence) helped build national support for his cause. However, in November 1963, the JFK-supported Civil Rights Act was blocked by southern legislators, despite the fact that it had enough votes to pass. JFK was assassinated in Dallas, TX on Nov 22, 1963, and Lyndon Johnson managed to pass the law in 1964, along with the Voting Rights Act in 1965. King was assassinated in Memphis, TN on Apr 4, 1968, while supporting a group of workers on strike. WHEN IS CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE JUSTIFIED? “In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law as the rabid segregationist would do. This would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do it 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 willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the very highest respect for law.” Civil disobedience occurs when a person (a) knowingly breaks a law and (b) voluntary accepts the punishment for doing so because (c) he or she believes that the law is unjust. In his letter to the clergy, King proposes a set of criteria for determining whether a particular act of civil disobedience is morally justified: Condition 1: The laws must, in fact, be unjust. The people who wish to engage in civil disobedience must first provide evidence that the laws they wish to break are actually unjust. In the case of Birmingham (and Southern segregation more generally), evidence is provided that the current situation is manifestly unjust – there is violence against black people, biased law enforcement, and so on. Plus, there is all the harm that segregation itself causes to both black children and adults. Condition 2: There must be legitimate attempt to change the laws using legally allowed processes. In a democratic society, one must make a legitimate attempt to change the unjust laws via the process that are provided for in the political/legal system.