Letter From a
MY DEAR FELLOW CLERGYMEN:
While confined here in the
I think I should indicate why I am here
In Birmingham, since you have been influenced by the view which argues against
"outsiders coming in." I have the honor of serving as president of
the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, an organization operating in
every southern state, with headquarters in
But more basically, I am in
Moreover, I am cognizant of the
interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in
You deplore the demonstrations taking
place In Birmingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a
similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations. I am
sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of
social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with
underlying causes. It is unfortunate that demonstrations are taking place in
In any nonviolent campaign there are four
basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist;
negotiation; self-purification; and direct action. We have gone through an
these steps in
Then, last September, came the
opportunity to talk with leaders of
As in so many past experiences, our hopes
bad been blasted, and the shadow of deep disappointment settled upon us. We had
no alternative except to prepare for direct action, whereby we would present
our very bodies as a means of laying our case before the conscience of the
local and the national community. Mindful of the difficulties involved, we
decided to undertake a process of self-purification. We began a series of
workshops on nonviolence, and we repeatedly asked ourselves : "Are you
able to accept blows without retaliating?" "Are you able to endure
the ordeal of jail?" We decided to schedule our direct-action program for
the Easter season, realizing that except for Christmas, this is the main shopping
period of the year. Knowing that a strong economic with with-drawal program
would be the by-product of direct action, we felt that this would be the best
time to bring pressure to bear on the merchants for the needed change.
Then it occurred to us that Birmingham's
mayoralty election was coming up in March, and we speedily decided to postpone
action until after election day. When we discovered that the Commissioner of
Public Safety, Eugene "Bull" Connor, had piled up enough votes to be
in the run-oat we decided again to postpone action until the day after the
run-off so that the demonstrations could not be used to cloud the issues. Like
many others, we waited to see Mr. Connor defeated, and to this end we endured
postponement after postponement. Having aided in this community need, we felt
that our direct-action program could be delayed no longer.
You may well ask: "Why direct
action? Why sit-ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better
path?" You are quite right in calling, for negotiation. Indeed, this is
the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create
such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly
refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize
the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension
as part of the work of the nonviolent-resister may sound rather shocking. But I
must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have
earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive,
nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it
was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise
from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative
analysis and objective appraisal, we must we see the need for nonviolent
gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from
the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of
understanding and brotherhood.
The purpose of our direct-action program
is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door
to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too
long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in
monologue rather than dialogue.
One of the basic points in your statement
is that the action that I and my associates have taken in Birmingham is
untimely. Some have asked: "Why didn't you give the new city
administration time to act?" The only answer that I can give to this query
is that the new Birmingham administration must be prodded about as much as the
outgoing one, before it will act. We are sadly mistaken if we feel that the
election of Albert Boutwell as mayor will bring the millennium to Birmingham.
While Mr. Boutwell is a much more gentle person than Mr. Connor, they are both
segregationists, dedicated to maintenance of the status quo. I have hope that
Mr. Boutwell will be reasonable enough to see the futility of massive
resistance to desegregation. But he will not see this without pressure from
devotees of civil rights. My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a
single gain civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure.
Lamentably, it is an historical 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 tend to be more immoral than individuals.
We know through painful experience that
freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the
oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct-action campaign that was
"well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the
disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!"
It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This
"Wait" has almost always meant 'Never." We must come to see,
with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is
justice denied."
We have waited for more than 340 years
for our constitutional and God-given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are
moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we stiff
creep at horse-and-buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch
counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging dark of
segregation to say, "Wait." But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch
your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim;
when you have seen hate-filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black
brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million
Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an
affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech
stammering as you seek to explain to your six-year-old daughter why she can't
go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television,
and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to
colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in
her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by
developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to
concoct an answer for a five-year-old son who is asking: "Daddy, why do
white people treat colored people so mean?"; when you take a cross-county
drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable
corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are
humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "white" and
"colored"; when your first name becomes "nigger," your
middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name
becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the
respected title "Mrs."; when you are harried by day and haunted by
night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance,
never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and
outer resentments; when you no forever fighting a degenerating sense of
"nobodiness" then you will understand why we find it difficult to
wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no
longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can
understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience.
You express a great deal of anxiety over
our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we
so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954
outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather
paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may won ask: "How can
you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in
the fact that there fire two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the
Brat to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral
responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to
disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law
is no law at all"
Now, what is the difference between the
two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a
man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law
is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of
St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal
law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law
that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust
because segregation distort the soul and damages the personality. It gives the
segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of
inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher
Martin Buber, substitutes an "I-it" relationship for an
"I-thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of
things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and
sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and awful. Paul Tillich said that
sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression 'of man's
tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is
that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is
morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they
are morally wrong.
Let us consider a more concrete example
of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power
majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on
itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code
that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow
itself. This is sameness made legal.
Let me give another explanation. A law is
unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the
right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that
the legislature of Alabama which set up that state's segregation laws was
democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are
used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some
counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population,
not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances
be considered democratically structured?
Sometimes a law is just on its face and
unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of
parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance
which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when
it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First Amendment
privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.
I hope you are able to ace the
distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or
defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy.
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.
Of course, there is nothing new about
this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of
Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the
ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the
early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating
pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman
Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates
practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party
represented a massive act of civil disobedience.
We should never forget that everything
Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian
freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was
"illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am
sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted
my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain
principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate
disobeying that country's antireligious laws.
I must make two honest confessions to
you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past
few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have
almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling
block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the
Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to
"order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the
absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who
constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot
agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes
he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical
concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more
convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more
frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm
acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
I had hoped that the white moderate would
understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and
that when they fan in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams
that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate
would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of
the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively
accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all
men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who
engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely
bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out
in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be
cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with an its ugliness to
the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the
tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of
national opinion before it can be cured.
In your statement you assert that our
actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate
violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed
man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't
this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and
his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in
which they made him drink hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his
unique God-consciousness and never-ceasing devotion to God's will precipitated
the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts
have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his
efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may
precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber.
I had also hoped that the white moderate
would reject the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for freedom.
I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes:
"An Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights
eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It
has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The
teachings of Christ take time to come to earth." Such an attitude stems
from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely rational notion that
there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills.
Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or
constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time
much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent
in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad
people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never
rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of
men willing to be co-workers with God, and without this 'hard work, time itself
becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time
creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is
the time to make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending
national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is the time to lift
our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to 6e solid rock of
human dignity.
You speak of our activity in Birmingham
as extreme. At fist I was rather disappointed that fellow clergymen would see
my nonviolent efforts as those of an extremist. I began thinking about the fact
that stand in the middle of two opposing forces in the Negro community. One is
a force of complacency, made up in part of Negroes who, as a result of long
years of oppression, are so drained of self-respect and a sense of
"somebodiness" that they have adjusted to segregation; and in part of
a few middle class Negroes who, because of a degree of academic and economic
security and because in some ways they profit by segregation, have become
insensitive to the problems of the masses. The other force is one of bitterness
and hatred, and it comes perilously close to advocating violence. It is
expressed in the various black nationalist groups that are springing up across
the nation, the largest and best-known being Elijah Muhammad's Muslim movement.
Nourished by the Negro's frustration over the continued existence of racial
discrimination, this movement is made up of people who have lost faith in America,
who have absolutely repudiated Christianity, and who have concluded that the
white man is an incorrigible "devil."
I have tried to stand between these two
forces, saying that we need emulate neither the "do-nothingism" of the
complacent nor the hatred and despair of the black nationalist. 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. And
I am further convinced that if our white brothers dismiss as
"rabble-rousers" and "outside agitators" those of us who
employ nonviolent direct action, and if they refuse to support our nonviolent
efforts, millions of Negroes will, out of frustration and despair, seek solace
and security in black-nationalist ideologies a development that would
inevitably lead to a frightening racial nightmare.
Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed
forever. The yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself, and that is what
has happened to the American Negro. Something within has reminded him of his
birthright of freedom, and something without has reminded him that it can be
gained. Consciously or unconsciously, he has been caught up by the Zeitgeist,
and with his black brothers of Africa and his brown and yellow brothers of
Asia, South America and the Caribbean, the United States Negro is moving with a
sense of great urgency toward the promised land of racial justice. If one
recognizes this vital urge that has engulfed the Negro community, one should
readily understand why public demonstrations are taking place. The Negro has
many pent-up resentments and latent frustrations, and he must release them. So
let him march; let him make prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; let him go on
freedom rides-and try to understand why he must do so. If his repressed
emotions are not released in nonviolent ways, they will seek expression through
violence; this is not a threat but a fact of history. So I have not said to my
people: "Get rid of your discontent." Rather, I have tried to say
that this normal and healthy discontent can be channeled into the creative
outlet of nonviolent direct action. And now this approach is being termed
extremist.
But though I was initially disappointed
at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter
I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an
extremist for love: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good
to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and
persecute you." Was not Amos an extremist for justice: "Let justice
roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream." Was
not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: "I bear in my body the
marks of the Lord Jesus." Was not Martin Luther an extremist: "Here I
stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God." And John Bunyan: "I
will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my
conscience." And Abraham Lincoln: "This nation cannot survive half
slave and half free." And Thomas Jefferson: "We hold these truths to
be self-evident, that an men are created equal ..." So the question is not
whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we viii be. We we be
extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremist for the preservation of
injustice or for the extension of justice? In that dramatic scene on Calvary's
hill three men were crucified. We must never forget that all three were
crucified for the same crime---the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for
immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other, Jesus Christ, was
an extremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his
environment. Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of
creative extremists.
I had hoped that the white moderate would
see this need. Perhaps I was too optimistic; perhaps I expected too much. I
suppose I should have realized that few members of the oppressor race can
understand the deep groans and passionate yearnings of the oppressed race, and
still fewer have the vision to see that injustice must be rooted out by strong,
persistent and determined action. I am thankful, however, that some of our
white brothers in the South have grasped the meaning of this social revolution
and committed themselves to it. They are still too few in quantity, but they
are big in quality. Some-such as Ralph McGill, Lillian Smith, Harry Golden,
James McBride Dabbs, Ann Braden and Sarah Patton Boyle---have written about our
struggle in eloquent and prophetic terms. Others have marched with us down
nameless streets of the South. They have languished in filthy, roach-infested
jails, suffering the abuse and brutality of policemen who view them as
"dirty nigger lovers." Unlike so many of their moderate brothers and
sisters, they have recognized the urgency of the moment and sensed the need for
powerful "action" antidotes to combat the disease of segregation.
Let me take note of my other major
disappointment. I have been so greatly disappointed with the white church and
its leadership. Of course, there are some notable exceptions. I am not unmindful
of the fact that each of you has taken some significant stands on this issue. I
commend you, Reverend Stallings, for your Christian stand on this past Sunday,
in welcoming Negroes to your worship service on a non segregated basis. I
commend the Catholic leaders of this state for integrating Spring Hill College
several years ago.
But despite these notable exceptions, I
must honestly reiterate that I have been disappointed with the church. I do not
say this as one of those negative critics who can always find something wrong
with the church. I say this as a minister of the gospel, who loves the church;
who was nurtured in its bosom; who 'has been sustained by its spiritual
blessings and who will remain true to it as long as the cord of Rio shall
lengthen.
When I was suddenly catapulted into the
leadership of the bus protest in Montgomery, Alabama, a few years ago, I felt
we would be supported by the white church felt that the white ministers,
priests and rabbis of the South would be among our strongest allies. Instead,
some have been outright opponents, refusing to understand the freedom movement
and misrepresenting its leader era; an too many others have been more cautious
than courageous and have remained silent behind the anesthetizing security of
stained-glass windows.
In spite of my shattered dreams, I came
to Birmingham with the hope that the white religious leadership of this
community would see the justice of our cause and, with deep moral concern,
would serve as the channel through which our just grievances could reach the
power structure. I had hoped that each of you would understand. But again I
have been disappointed.
I have heard numerous southern religious
leaders admonish their worshipers to comply with a desegregation decision
because it is the law, but I have longed to hear white ministers declare:
"Follow this decree because integration is morally right and because the
Negro is your brother." In the midst of blatant injustices inflicted upon
the Negro, I have watched white churchmen stand on the sideline and mouth pious
irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities. In the midst of a mighty struggle
to rid our nation of racial and economic injustice, I have heard many ministers
say: "Those are social issues, with which the gospel has no real
concern." And I have watched many churches commit themselves to a
completely other worldly religion which makes a strange, on Biblical
distinction between body and soul, between the sacred and the secular.
I have traveled the length and breadth of
Alabama, Mississippi and all the other southern states. On sweltering summer
days and crisp autumn mornings I have looked at the South's beautiful churches
with their lofty spires pointing heavenward. I have beheld the impressive
outlines of her massive religious-education buildings. Over and over I have
found myself asking: "What kind of people worship here? Who is their God?
Where were their voices when the lips of Governor Barnett dripped with words of
interposition and nullification? Where were they when Governor Walleye gave a
clarion call for defiance and hatred? Where were their voices of support when
bruised and weary Negro men and women decided to rise from the dark dungeons of
complacency to the bright hills of creative protest?"
Yes, these questions are still in my
mind. In deep disappointment I have wept over the laxity of the church. But be
assured that my tears have been tears of love. There can be no deep
disappointment where there is not deep love. Yes, I love the church. How could
I do otherwise? l am in the rather unique position of being the son, the
grandson and the great-grandson of preachers. Yes, I see the church as the body
of Christ. But, oh! How we have blemished and scarred that body through social
neglect and through fear of being nonconformists.
There was a time when the church was very
powerful in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy
to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a
thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a
thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Whenever the early Christians
entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to
convict the Christians for being "disturbers of the peace" and "outside
agitators"' But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they
were "a colony of heaven," called to obey God rather than man. Small
in number, they were big in commitment. They were too God intoxicated to be
"astronomically intimidated." By their effort and example they
brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide. and gladiatorial contests.
Things are different now. So often the
contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So
often it is an archdefender of the status quo. Par from being disturbed by the
presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is
consoled by the church's silent and often even vocal sanction of things as they
are.
But the judgment of God is upon the
church as never before. If today's church does not recapture the sacrificial
spirit of the early church, it vi lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of
millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the
twentieth century. Every day I meet young people whose disappointment with the
church has turned into outright disgust.
Perhaps I have once again been too
optimistic. Is organized religion too inextricably bound to the status quo to
save our nation and the world? Perhaps I must turn my faith to the inner
spiritual church, the church within the church, as the true ekklesia and the
hope of the world. But again I am thankful to God that some noble souls from
the ranks of organized religion have broken loose from the paralyzing chains of
conformity and joined us as active partners in the struggle for freedom, They
have left their secure congregations and walked the streets of Albany, Georgia,
with us. They have gone down the highways of the South on tortuous rides for
freedom. Yes, they have gone to jai with us. Some have been dismissed from
their churches, have lost the support of their bishops and fellow ministers.
But they have acted in the faith that right defeated is stronger than evil
triumphant. Their witness has been the spiritual salt that has preserved the
true meaning of the gospel in these troubled times. They have carved a tunnel
of hope through the dark mountain of disappointment.
I hope the church as a whole will meet
the challenge of this decisive hour. But even if the church does not come to
the aid of justice, I have no despair about the future. I have no fear about
the outcome of our struggle in Birmingham, even if our motives are at present
misunderstood. We will reach the goal of freedom in Birmingham, ham and all
over the nation, because the goal of America k freedom. Abused and scorned
though we may be, our destiny is tied up with America's destiny. Before the
pilgrims landed at Plymouth, we were here. Before the pen of Jefferson etched
the majestic words of the Declaration of Independence across the pages of
history, we were here. For more than two centuries our forebears labored in
this country without wages; they made cotton king; they built the homes of
their masters while suffering gross injustice and shameful humiliation-and yet
out of a bottomless vitality they continued to thrive and develop. If the
inexpressible cruelties of slavery could not stop us, the opposition we now
face will surely fail. We will win our freedom because the sacred heritage of
our nation and the eternal will of God are embodied in our echoing demands.
Before closing I feel impelled to mention
one other point in your statement that has troubled me profoundly. You warmly
commended the Birmingham police force for keeping "order" and
"preventing violence." I doubt that you would have so warmly
commended the police force if you had seen its dogs sinking their teeth into
unarmed, nonviolent Negroes. I doubt that you would so quickly commend the
policemen if .you were to observe their ugly and inhumane treatment of Negroes
here in the city jail; if you were to watch them push and curse old Negro women
and young Negro girls; if you were to see them slap and kick old Negro men and
young boys; if you were to observe them, as they did on two occasions, refuse
to give us food because we wanted to sing our grace together. I cannot join you
in your praise of the Birmingham police department.
It is true that the police have exercised
a degree of discipline in handing the demonstrators. In this sense they have
conducted themselves rather "nonviolently" in pubic. But for what
purpose? To preserve the evil system of segregation. Over the past few years I
have consistently preached that nonviolence demands that the means we use must
be as pure as the ends we seek. I have tried to make clear that it is wrong to
use immoral means to attain moral ends. But now I must affirm that it is just
as wrong, or perhaps even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends.
Perhaps Mr. Connor and his policemen have been rather nonviolent in public, as
was Chief Pritchett in Albany, Georgia but they have used the moral means of
nonviolence to maintain the immoral end of racial injustice. As T. S. Eliot has
said: "The last temptation is the greatest treason: To do the right deed
for the wrong reason."
I wish you had commended the Negro
sit-inners and demonstrators of Birmingham for their sublime courage, their
willingness to suffer and their amazing discipline in the midst of great
provocation. One day the South will recognize its real heroes. They will be the
James Merediths, with the noble sense of purpose that enables them to face
Jeering, and hostile mobs, and with the agonizing loneliness that characterizes
the life of the pioneer. They will be old, oppressed, battered Negro women,
symbolized in a seventy-two-year-old woman in Montgomery, Alabama, who rose up
with a sense of dignity and with her people decided not to ride segregated
buses, and who responded with ungrammatical profundity to one who inquired
about her weariness: "My fleets is tired, but my soul is at rest."
They will be the young high school and college students, the young ministers of
the gospel and a host of their elders, courageously and nonviolently sitting in
at lunch counters and willingly going to jail for conscience' sake. One day the
South will know that when these disinherited children of God sat down at lunch
counters, they were in reality standing up for what is best in the American
dream and for the most sacred values in our Judaeo-Christian heritage, thereby
bringing our nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep
by the founding fathers in their formulation of the Constitution and the
Declaration of Independence.
Never before have I written so long a
letter. I'm afraid it is much too long to take your precious time. I can assure
you that it would have been much shorter if I had been writing from a
comfortable desk, but what else can one do when he k alone in a narrow jail
cell, other than write long letters, think long thoughts and pray long prayers?
If I have said anything in this letter
that overstates the truth and indicates an unreasonable impatience, I beg you
to forgive me. If I have said anything that understates the truth and indicates
my having a patience that allows me to settle for anything less than
brotherhood, I beg God to forgive me.
I hope this letter finds you strong in
the faith. I also hope that circumstances will soon make it possible for me to
meet each of you, not as an integrationist or a civil rights leader but as a
fellow clergyman and a Christian brother. Let us all hope that the dark clouds
of racial prejudice will soon pass away and the deep fog of misunderstanding
will be lifted from our fear-drenched communities, and in some not too distant
tomorrow the radiant stars of love and brotherhood will shine over our great
nation with all their scintillating beauty.
Yours for the cause of Peace and
Brotherhood,
MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.