Martin Luther King Letter from Birmingham

1. King’s tone in the opening paragraph is didactic and assertive. He explains his purpose in

writing the letter, to “answer [the] statement [from the 8 Alabama clergymen] in . . . patient and

reasonable terms” (172). The abundance of respectful diction, like “correspondence” and

“genuine good will” throughout the paragraph illustrates the calm, thorough, and logical manner

in which King refutes the clergymen’s argument. He remains as objective as possible, promising

to argue in “patient and reasonable terms” (172), while still establishing his own arguments. The

structure of the paragraph itself, beginning with a description of his current situation, moving on

to explain the motive behind his response, and concluding with his goals in writing the paper sets

a confident and informative tone for his letter. His first sentence serves to be both impactful and

ironic, as he explains that he is “confined . . . in the Birmingham city jail” (172). It is ironic that

King is sitting in jail while his “dear fellow clergymen” assure him that the government and

legislation will provide equality and support for African Americans. Additionally, his tedious

consistency in maintaining a respectful tone slightly leans towards sarcasm.

3. King alludes to Christianity frequently throughout his letter, appealing to both ethos and

pathos. His many biblical references - Apostle Paul, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Paul Tillich to

name a few - demonstrate his deep knowledge of Christianity as well as Christian history. By

alluding to numerous biblical figures and events, King establishes his credibility as a pastor and

as a knowledgeable man. His accomplishment in using a wide range of references is heightened

by the fact that he is sitting in the Birmingham city jail. Even without any resources to rely on,

King manages to incorporate a plethora of biblical allusions, further exhibiting his intellect and
credibility. His numerous allusions also appeals to his audience, specifically Christians.

References like “the gospel of Jesus Christ” (173) and the story of “Shadrach, Meshach, and

Abednego” (179) are familiar stories for Christians, allowing them to relate to King and see him

in a positive light. King even connects himself to these stories, comparing the “gospel of Jesus

Christ” to his own “gospel of freedom” (173). Given that many white people at the time were

Christian, King is now able to appeal to an audience that is against most of the beliefs that he

stands for.

5. King uses many rhetorical devices in paragraph 25, specifically rhetorical question, repetition,

metaphor, and allusion. He employs rhetorical question and repetition when he poses the several

questions with the same beginning: “Isn’t this like . . .” (180). King puts the responsibility of

answering the questions onto the reader, essentially compelling the audience to understand his

argument. The succession of questions also emphasize King’s argument and creates an impact.

The paragraph as a whole, in fact, serves as a counterargument against the claim that “peaceful

protest must be condemned because [it] precipitates] violence” (180). King addresses this claim

through another rhetorical strategy, simile. He compares the condemning of peaceful protest to

the “condemning of a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of

robbery” (180). By comparing situations, King points out the flawed logic of the clergymen in

their argument that peaceful protests must be prohibited. He additionally likens the condemning

of peaceful protest to the “condemning [of] Jesus because [of] his unique God-consciousness”

(180). Not only is this comparison powerful, but it also alludes to Christianity. His audience is

forced to realize that condemning peaceful protest is similar to condemning Jesus for his
outspoken behavior, and because the latter is a claim that most of his readers would object, they

would also object to condemning peaceful protest.

6. King also uses rhetorical devices in paragraph 31, particularly rhetorical question, repetition,

allusion, contrast, and counterargument. Similar to paragraph 25, King poses multiple questions

with similar sentence structure. He incorporates rhetorical question and repetition in his phrase

“Was not . . . an extremist?” (183). He evokes the audience’s emotion by compelling them to

question their beliefs and to consider other perspectives. He also lists many historically important

figures, arguing that such figures became revered due to their unique, extremist ideologies. In

doing so, King alludes to figures like Apostle Paul, Martin Luther, and Abraham Lincoln to

name a few. He refers to well known figures to connect to his readers and also compares himself

to such figures, appealing to pathos. The central focus of this paragraph is King’s interpretation

of extremist, which he defines quite loosely. He argues that the word extremist does not always

have a negative connotation, as he is an “extremist . . . for the extension of justice” (183). In this

sense, King contrasts extremism “for immorality” and extremism “for love, truth, and goodness”

(183). By distinguishing the two different forms of extremism: good and bad, King is able to

argue that he is indeed an extremist, more specifically an extremist “for love” (183). Because

King contrasts the two types of extremism, he is able to refute the clergymen’s argument that he

is an extremist – defined by the clergymen as someone who incites unnecessary action. With this

new explanation of extremism, King successfully forms a counterargument.

7. King maintains the idea of contrast throughout his letter, one of these ideas being the contrast

between sickness and health. King describes the “painful experience” of enduring “the disease of

segregation”, likening oppression to sickness. By comparing segregation to a disease, King

implies that the feeling of pain and distress associated with diseases is similar to the sentiment of

the oppressed. King later relates racial inequality to “a boil that can never cured as long as it is

covered up [and] it must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light

[in order for] injustice [to] be exposed” (180). The idea of sickness and health appears again, as

King parallels an incurable boil to the struggle of the oppressed. He explains that exposing the

wound, or the inequality, will allow for true healing. By using these contrasting qualities, King

establishes the gravity of racial segregation and the need for immediate action.

10. The conclusion of the letter re-establishes King’s respectful, almost yielding attitude while

also appealing to the reader's’ emotion. He asks the clergymen for their “precious time” (188),

and he even asks for forgiveness in any instance where he “overstates the truth [or] indicates an

unreasonable impatience” (188). Despite his objective, logical arguments, he remains extremely

humble through the end of his letter. In addition, he asks for judgement “as a fellow clergymen

and a Christian brother” (189), demonstrating his wish to relate and connect to his readers as

equals. He elicits empathy and a sense of moral obligation from his readers by hoping for “some

not too distant tomorrow [where] the radiant stars of love and brotherhood will shine over [the]

great nation” (189). The idea of brotherhood, and the promise of a better tomorrow inspires

readers to support King and his beliefs. Even the farewell address of the letter retains King’s true

motives: “the cause of Peace and Brotherhood” (189). He finishes the letter with an impactful

statement that reminds the readers of his sole purpose, which demonstrates that his arguments are

purely for justice and no other cause.