Difficult Times Make for Great Leaders When America is at its worst, individuals are at their best. Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King Jr are two revolutionary individuals who protested for their rights and freedoms. In 1849, during the peak of slavery, and the end of the Mexican- American war, Thoreau, a Harvard educated, white male, composed an essay called “Civil Disobedience”, in which he argues that individuals should not let the government overrule their consciences and that it is their duty to resist the injustice. In 1963, during the peak of the American Civil Rights Movement, and the midst of the Vietnam War, Martin Luther King Jr, a highly educated African-American reverend, composed a “Letter From Birmingham Jail”, in which …show more content…
In the essay, “Civil Disobedience”, Thoreau argues, “A government in which the majority rule in all cases can not be based on justice, even as far as the men can understand it” (Thoreau). He claims that in order for the government to be justly ruled by a majority, the voters have to represent all of the population being governed. Even under these circumstances, what the majority of voters may believe is right for everyone, may not always be what is right for each individual, and this creates conflict between what is moral, and what is lawful. In King’s letter, “Letter From Birmingham Jail”, he claims that throughout Alabama and beyond, the majority of the population consists of African-Americans, yet there are laws prevent them from having an equal opportunity to vote (King). He questions whether or not the United States, or any other country, can claim to be a democracy if laws exist that prevent entire groups of people from expressing their rights (King). In the United States, the government claims that everyone has the right to vote, however just because everyone has have the right to do so, this does not mean they have an equal opportunity to express their rights. King uses this fact to draw attention to the fact to the inequality in America, and he argues that this should not be able to be justified by the government. …show more content…
The men use their personal experiences of living life in America to open the eyes of their audiences, and show them what being a minority in America is like. They want others that are not like them to see, that change is necessary for America to develop and succeed, but this change needs to come from the people, for it is never going to come from the government. They are proving that successful rebellion comes from a nation that is
As Chris McCandless once said, “I now walk into the wild,” a phrase that not only represents a future with unknown mysteries, but a phrase that finishes the puzzle of his and Martin Luther King, Jr’s life. When looking at a historical or inspirational person, you may notice they operated outside the usual bounds of society to achieve a particular purpose. Such is the case for McCandless and King. Although Chris McCandless and Martin Luther King, Jr both shared a fatal death, these men had many similarities and differences between how they reached success, encountered obstacles, and left an impact towards people's lives.
Though Henry David Thoreau lived more than one hundred years before the time of Martin Luther King Jr., his philosophy lingered in the minds of many individuals. Thoreau was opposed to injustice in general and refused to support or to follow the unjust laws. His idealism and anarchism influenced the thinking of King. Douglass' narrative shows how his thinking would have been similar to that of Thoreau's.
The idea of challenging an unreasonable law is central to both King, Jr.'s and Thoreau's plights, though each have very distinct characteristics unique to themselves. In King, Jr.'s case, he saw segregation and racial discrimination as mistakes on the part of the government and he set out to make substantial changes to the status quo. In doing so, he acted upon Thoreau's concept that every person retains the right to judge civil laws for decency and credibility. "One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws," (Birmingham Jail 82). Should one find the law to be in the best interest of each individual as well as society as a whole, he should abide by it and make every effort to live by its standard. But reversely, should the law be found guilty of evil intentions and causing more harm than good, it is the duty of every person under that law to disregard it and make an attempt "to wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support," (Disobedience 6).
The two essays, "Civil Disobedience," by Henry David Thoreau, and "Letter From a Birmingham Jail," by Martin Luther King, Jr., effectively illustrate the authors' opinions of justice. Each author has his main point; Thoreau, in dealing with justice as it relates to government, asks for "not at once no government, but at once a better government. King contends that "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Both essays offer a complete argument for justice, but, given the conditions, King's essay remains more effective, in that its persuasive techniques have more practical application. Both essays extensively implement both emotional and ethical appeal to give their respective ideas validity.
Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” was written while he was “confined in the Birmingham city jail.” His letter was a direct response to the eight Alabama clergymen who insisted that King’s use of nonviolent direct action was unlawful. The clergymen questioned his method of protests even though they had similar goals as King. In his letter, King illustrates the hardships and injustices that African Americans in the United States were enduring during the mid-twentieth century; doing so allows King to justify the nonviolent actions of his fellow protestors. King uses the classical appeals of ethos, pathos, and logos, along with his rhetorical situation, to support his claims about the racial discrimination and segregation in the United States.
on ways to be civil but disobedient, they have opposite ways of convicing you. Dr.
Martin Luther King and Henry David Thoreau each write exemplary persuasive essays that depict social injustice and discuss civil disobedience, which is the refusal to comply with the law in order to prove a point. In his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” King speaks to a specific audience: the African Americans, and discusses why he feels they should bring an end to segregation. Thoreau on the other hand, in “Civil Disobedience,” speaks to a broader, non-addressed audience as he largely expresses his feelings towards what he feels is an unjust government. Both essays however, focus on the mutual topics of morality and justice and use these topics to inform and motivate their audience to, at times, defy the government in order to establish the necessary justice.
In 1848, David Thoreau addressed and lectured civil disobedience to the Concord Lyceum in response to his jail time related to his protest of slavery and the Mexican War. In his lecture, Thoreau expresses in the beginning “That government is best which governs least,” which sets the topic for the rest of the lecture, and is arguably the overall theme of his speech. He chastises American institutions and policies, attempting to expand his views to others. In addition, he advances his views to his audience by way of urgency, analyzing the misdeeds of the government while stressing the time-critical importance of civil disobedience. Thoreau addresses civil disobedience to apprise the people of the need for a civil protest to the unjust laws created against the slaves and the Mexican-American war.
There are times throughout the history of the United States when its citizens have felt the need to revolt against the government. There were such cases during the time of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Henry David Thoreau, when there was unfair discrimination against the Afro-American community and Americans refusing to pay poll taxes to support the Mexican War. They used civil disobedience to eventually get legislation to stop the injustice brought against them and their nation. Civil disobedience is defined as refusal to obey civil laws or decrees, which usually takes the form of passive resistance. People practicing civil disobedience break a law because they consider the law unjust, and want to call attention to its injustice, hoping to bring about its withdrawal.
King unmasks a harsh truth about the transgressions taking place in Birmingham. This shows that the legislators are going to extreme lengths to keep African Americans from voting, even in places where they make up most of the population. Not only is this a problem because they have no voice in the decision of the segregation laws, but they don’t even have an input for any other laws. This is a violation to their constitutional rights and is most likely the reason why King ended the paragraph off with that question. He knows that the U.S. is supposed to be founded on the grounds of democracy, and yet they are selective to whom its beneficiaries of democracy
The ideas of King are very similar to the ideas of Thoreau. Moreover, the “Letter from Birmingham Jail” shows that King, read the writings of many famous people. From these two reasons, King had probably read “Civil Disobedience” as an important document regarding justice and injustice. Therefore, the positions of the two writers are very close, and they cite conscience as a guide to obeying just laws.
When it comes to civil rights, there are two pieces of literature commonly discussed. One of these pieces is Henry David Thoreau’s persuasive lecture On the Duty of Civil Disobedience. In this work, Thoreau discusses how one must combat the government with disobedience of unjust laws and positive friction to create change. The second piece is the commonly known article Letter From a Birmingham Jail by Martin Luther King Jr. This letter covers the ways in which peaceful protest and standing up against injustice can lead to positive results. Both pieces conveyed a similar message of standing up for what is right. The strongest rhetorical methods which Thoreau uses are allusions, logos, ethos and rhetorical questions. However, King’s use of
Martin Luther King Jr. and John F. Kennedy were two very commendable men. They were two very different men that I feel had the same incredible amount passion for human beings. Both Dr. King and President Kennedy had such high hopes for this country and regardless of the sad and devastating time era, they both spoke with much poise and compassion. I truly believe they are exactly what this country needed and still needs to this very day.
Comparing the Civil Disobedience of Martin Luther King Jr., Henry David Thoreau, and Mohandas Gandhi. From the onset of man fighting for freedom or his beliefs, the question has always been whether one person can make a difference using words rather than wars. Philosophically, the concept of civil disobedience would appear to be an ineffective weapon against political injustice; history however has proven it to repeatedly be one of the most powerful weapons of the common man. Martin Luther King Jr. looked at the way African Americans were treated in the United States and saw an increase in inequality.
The definition of a leader is a person who influences people to a common purpose. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr are examples of great leaders who brought about social change through alternative means in the 20th century. Their means were through nonviolent protests of freedom. Gandhi fought for freedom from Great Britain, and King fought for freedom from segregation and equal rights for all Americans.