Letter From Birmingham Jail Vs. “I Have a Dream Speech”

The first way that a “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” and “ I have a Dream” differ are in their intended audience, as one is intended for a group of white clergymen while the other is intended to rally a large group. This difference in audience and how Dr. King chooses to appeal to each of his audiences causes for the choices in language and the purpose of “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” and “I have a Dream” to differ. “Letter from Birmingham Jail” is addressed to white clergymen, and the purpose of the letter is to defend the demonstrations that were taking place. As Dr. King is trying to defend the demonstrations to these white clergymen, his language choice is quite interesting. One brilliant way that he chooses to defend the demonstrations is by appealing to the white men through his choice of Anglo terms. For instance, in the letter, Dr. King writes, “Just as the prophets of the eighth century century B.C. left their villages and carried their “thus saint the Lord” far beyond the boundaries of their home towns…I am compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town” (King). This choice of wording makes Dr. King’s argument stronger since as these white men disagree with Dr. King and his form of peaceful protest, the white clergymen will not be able to argue back because he is using religious references that if the white men chose to argue against, it would make them look like hypocrites (Eubank).
While there are some differences between “Letter from Birmingham Jail” and the “I Have a Dream” speech, there are also similarities. One similarity that the two share is in how King is incredibly understanding of his audience and thus chooses the proper wording to keep his audience aware. The way that King argues in both his letter and speech appeal to everyone in some way, however, the way that he changes his tone and wording throughout both in order to

While all of the arguments Martin Luther King puts forth in both works have the ability to appeal to everyone in some way, the manner in which he shifts his tone and rhetoric many times throughout each text in order to address a specific audience is what makes these documents so powerful, however many people believe because “I have a dream speech” was for ordinary people it had a greater influence on people. both in out our own modern era and of course, for those involved in the debates over civil rights in America during the 1960s. Since so many of Martin Luther King’s arguments are based on emotion and appeal to tradition and culture, it is most useful to look at the ways he uses rhetoric to appeal to certain subsets of his audience while making arguments that challenge conceptions of these traditions that America is based on.
To further consider the speeches of Martin Luther King Jr. and the use rhetoric and images invoked by the following passage from “Letter from Birmingham Jail” and take particular note of the way Martin Luther King is attempting to appeal to his audience (in this section, the white clergymen) in classical Anglo terms. This does not seem so much for the ultimate purpose of writing in a way they are able to understand better, but rather, he is using the very cultural, biblical, and classical foundations of Anglo society to point out the inherent hypocrisy in what they claim to hold dear. Martin Luther King states, “Just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried their ‘thus saith the Lord’ far beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco-Roman world, so am I compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my home town” (King). This is truly a brilliant rhetorical strategy in terms of audience awareness. Even though these men clearly disagree with Dr. King and his notion of civil rights and peaceful protest, what counterargument can they propose in the face of their own sacred traditions? Martin Luther King seemed to understand that by putting his argument on the same religious and academic level as these eight men claimed to be at, there would be no possibility of refutation since if they were to do so, they would only look like hypocrites.
“Designed apparently as a refutative response to the clergymen, Martin Luther King’s essay actually addresses two audiences simultaneously; the limited and precisely defined group of eight clergymen and a broader and less exactly defined group of intelligent and religious moderates” (Eubank). In this letter, Martin Luther King not only addresses these clergymen, but does so on their own terms. He uses rhetorical strategies and language that invokes a sense of these men’s hypocrisy and once he accomplishes this, the argument for the protests broadens out and his tone shifts and begins to include the larger, presumably agreeing audience.
To further consider the speeches of Martin Luther King Jr. and the use rhetoric and images invoked by the following passage from “Letter from Birmingham Jail” and take particular note of the way Martin Luther King is attempting to appeal to his audience (in this section, the white clergymen) in classical Anglo terms. This does not seem so much for the ultimate purpose of writing in a way they are able to understand better, but rather, he is using the very cultural, biblical, and classical foundations of Anglo society to point out the inherent hypocrisy in what they claim to hold dear. Martin Luther King states, “Just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried their ‘thus saith the Lord’ far beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco-Roman world, so am I compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my home town” (King). This is truly a brilliant rhetorical strategy in terms of audience awareness. Even though these men clearly disagree with Dr. King and his notion of civil rights and peaceful protest, what counterargument can they propose in the face of their own sacred traditions? Martin Luther King seemed to understand that by putting his argument on the same religious and academic level as these eight men claimed to be at, there would be no possibility of refutation since if they were to do so, they would only look like hypocrites. In the case of the former argument above, it is also important to point out that Martin Luther King was rhetorically skilled at broadening his arguments to include an ever-widening subset of the audience. As Fulkerson notes, after addressing these clergymen on their own terms (thus eliminating the possibility of refutation through a clever understanding of rhetoric and audience awareness) he includes those “intelligent and religious moderates” by appealing to the audience on a slightly more secular level by invoking a pillar of the Anglo-American academic tradition. King states, “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, so 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…” (King). Therefore, in this context he has not alienated any of his readers, rather, he has brought those non-religious into the fold by addressing concerns that fall outside of the intuitionally religious, but still within the same paradigms academia is based upon. Perhaps what it most brilliant about the “Letter From Birmingham Jail” is that, in capturing his initially intended audience’s attention by appealing to their traditions and foundations, he has made them unconsciously “stay tuned” into the powerful and more simply arguments based on emotion that are to follow. In this way, he has not only reached out to embrace all audiences, but in the very structure of these varied appeals, has made certain that those whom he most wishes to appeal to are forced to hear the other, more emotional side of the argument as well. In other words, while the ‘American dream’ and the ‘Christian faith’ may have resonated with the audience, the moral force of his speech depended upon the juxtaposition of these structures with the story of racial oppression” (Bridger). This is quite apparent in the very opening lines of the speech in which the foundations for American government as exploited for narrative and rhetorical use. In something of a mockery of the great documents of America, King begins, “Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity” (Dream). By invoking these ideals of America, again, King is pointing out the inherent hypocrisy of what so many Anglo-Americans seem to hold true. Again, by doing so, he eliminates the possibility of dissent amongst that particular audience because if they were to refute this point, that would be equivalent to them claiming that the basis for their country was not valid, a quite shattering notion, really.
Once he has his target audience engaged, much like in the “Letter from Birmingham Jail” his language becomes very simple and direct again. The difference is, he is now urging direct action (as opposed to swelling of emotion as expressed in the “Letter from Birmingham Jail”). He pleads his audience, his voice audibly rising, becoming more “preacher-like” to, “Go back to Mississippi: Go back to Alabama: Go back to South Carolina: Go back to Georgia: Go back to Louisiana: Go back to the slums and ghettos of our Northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair”(King). Overall, once could easily assume that Martin Luther King had a very sharp sense of rhetoric—both classical and modern, and well as a deep understanding of the nature of hypocrisy and the way it factors into arguments. His assumptions about these supposed “pillars” of American society (religion, founding fathers, and the American Dream) enable him to keep his intended audience paying attention for what he most wanted to convey—the emotional plight of those involved in the campaign for civil rights.