AUGUST 1963

by Martin Luther King, Jr.

Letter from Birmingham Jail

From the Birmingham jail, where he was imprisoned as a participant in nonviolent demonstrations against segregation, Dr.
Martin Luther King, Jr., wrote in longhand the letter which follows. It was his response to a public statement of concern and
caution issued by eight white religious leaders of the South. Dr. King, who was born in 1929, did his undergraduate work at
Morehouse College; attended the integrated Crozer Theological Seminary in Chester, Pennsylvania, one of six black pupils
among a hundred students, and the president of his class; and won a fellowship to Boston University for his Ph.D.

WHILE confined here in the Birmingham city jail, I came across your recent statement calling our
present activities "unwise and untimely." Seldom, if ever, do I pause to answer criticism of my work and
ideas. If I sought to answer all of the criticisms that cross my desk, my secretaries would be engaged in
little else in the course of the day, and I would have no time for constructive work. But since I feel that
you are men of genuine good will and your criticisms are sincerely set forth, I would like to answer your
statement in what I hope will be patient and reasonable terms.

I think I should give the reason for my being in Birmingham, since you have been influenced by the
argument of "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 Atlanta,
Georgia. We have some eighty-five affiliate organizations all across the South, one being the Alabama
Christian Movement for Human Rights. Whenever necessary and possible, we share staff, educational and
financial resources with our affiliates. Several months ago our local affiliate here in Birmingham invited
us to be on call to engage in a nonviolent direct-action program if such were deemed necessary. We
readily consented, and when the hour came we lived up to our promises. So I am here, along with several
members of my staff, because we were invited here. I am here because I have basic organizational ties
here.

Beyond this, I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just as the eighth-century prophets left their
little villages and carried their "thus saith the Lord" far beyond the boundaries of their hometowns; and
just as the Apostle Paul left his little village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to practically
every hamlet and city of the Greco-Roman world, I too am compelled to carry the gospel of freedom
beyond my particular hometown. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid.

Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in
Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice
everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny.
Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow,
provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an
outsider.

You deplore the demonstrations that are presently taking place in Birmingham. But I am sorry that your
statement did not express a similar concern for the conditions that brought the demonstrations into being.
I am sure that each of you would want to go beyond the superficial social analyst who looks merely at
effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. I would not hesitate to say that it is unfortunate that
so-called demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham at this time, but I would say in more emphatic
terms that it is even more unfortunate that the white power structure of this city left the Negro community
with no other alternative.

IN ANY nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether
injustices are alive, negotiation, self-purification, and direct action. We have gone through all of these
steps in Birmingham. There can be no gainsaying of the fact that racial injustice engulfs this community.
Birmingham is probably the most thoroughly segregated city in the United States. Its ugly record of police
brutality is known in every section of this country. Its unjust treatment of Negroes in the courts is a
notorious reality. There have been more unsolved bombings of Negro homes and churches in Birmingham
than in any other city in this nation. These are the hard, brutal, and unbelievable facts. On the basis of
them, Negro leaders sought to negotiate with the city fathers. But the political leaders consistently refused
to engage in good-faith negotiation.

Then came the opportunity last September to talk with some of the leaders of the economic community. In
these negotiating sessions certain promises were made by the merchants, such as the promise to remove
the humiliating racial signs from the stores. On the basis of these promises, Reverend Shuttlesworth and
the leaders of the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights agreed to call a moratorium on any
type of demonstration. As the weeks and months unfolded, we realized that we were the victims of a
broken promise. The signs remained. As in so many experiences of the past, we were confronted with
blasted hopes, and the dark shadow of a deep disappointment settled upon us. So we had no alternative
except that of preparing for direct action, whereby we would present our very bodies as a means of laying
our case before the conscience of the local and national community. We were not unmindful of the
difficulties involved. So we decided to go through a process of self-purification. We started having
workshops on nonviolence and repeatedly asked ourselves the questions, "Are you able to accept blows
without retaliating?" and "Are you able to endure the ordeals of jail?" We decided to set our direct-action
program around the Easter season, realizing that, with exception of Christmas, this was the largest
shopping period of the year. Knowing that a strong economic withdrawal program would be the
by-product of direct action, we felt that this was the best time to bring pressure on the merchants for the
needed changes. Then it occurred to us that the March election was ahead, and so we speedily decided to
postpone action until after election day. When we discovered that Mr. Conner was in the runoff, we
decided again to postpone action so that the demonstration could not be used to cloud the issues. At this
time we agreed to begin our nonviolent witness the day after the runoff.

This reveals that we did not move irresponsibly into direct action. We, too, wanted to see Mr. Conner
defeated, so we went through postponement after postponement to aid in this community need. After this
we felt that direct action 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 exactly right in your call for negotiation. Indeed, this is the purpose of direct action. Nonviolent
direct action seeks to create such a crisis and establish such creative tension that a community that has
consistently refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks to dramatize the issue that it can
no longer be ignored. I just referred to the creation of tension as a part of the work of the nonviolent
resister. This may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I
have earnestly worked and preached against violent tension, but there is a type of constructive nonviolent
tension that 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 see the need of having nonviolent gadflies to create the
kind of tension in society that will help men to rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the
majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. So, the purpose of direct action is to create a situation
so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. We therefore concur with you in your
call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in the tragic attempt to live in
monologue rather than dialogue.

One of the basic points in your statement is that our acts are untimely. Some have asked, "Why didn't you
give the new administration time to act?" The only answer that I can give to this inquiry is that the new
administration must be prodded about as much as the outgoing one before it acts. We will be sadly
mistaken if we feel that the election of Mr. Boutwell will bring the millennium to Birmingham. While Mr.
Boutwell is much more articulate and gentle than Mr. Conner, they are both segregationists, dedicated to
the task of maintaining the status quo. The hope I see in Mr. Boutwell is that he will be reasonable enough
to see the futility of massive resistance to desegregation. But he will not see this without pressure from the
devotees of civil rights. My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain in civil rights
without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. 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.

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be
demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have never yet engaged in a direct-action movement that was "well
timed" according to the timetable 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 a piercing familiarity.
This "wait" has almost always meant "never." It has been a tranquilizing thalidomide, relieving the
emotional stress for a moment, only to give birth to an ill-formed infant of frustration. We must come to
see with the distinguished jurist of yesterday that "justice too long delayed is justice denied." We have
waited for more than three hundred and forty years for our God-given and constitutional rights. The
nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward the goal of political independence, and
we still creep at horse-and-buggy pace toward the gaining of a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. I guess it
is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts 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, brutalize, and even kill your black brothers and
sisters with impunity; 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 cannot
go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in
her little eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see the depressing clouds
of inferiority begin to form in her little mental sky, and see her begin to distort her little personality by
unconsciously developing a bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a
five-year-old son asking in agonizing pathos, "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so
mean?"; when you take a cross-country 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" and your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name becomes
"John," and when 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
knowing what to expect next, and plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever
fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodyness" -- 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 an abyss of injustice where they experience the bleakness of corroding 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, it is rather strange and paradoxical to find us consciously breaking laws.
One may well ask, "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer is found
in the fact that there are two types of laws: there are just laws, and there are 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 when 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 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
distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the
segregated a false sense of inferiority. To use the words of Martin Buber, the great Jewish philosopher,
segregation substitutes an "I - it" relationship for the "I - thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons
to the status of things. So segregation is not only politically, economically, and sociologically unsound,
but it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Isn't segregation an
existential expression of man's tragic separation, an expression of his awful estrangement, his terrible
sinfulness? So I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court because it is morally right,
and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances because they are morally wrong.

Let us turn to a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a majority
inflicts on a minority that is not binding on itself. This difference is made legal. On the other hand, 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. An unjust law is a code inflicted upon a minority which that minority
had no part in enacting or creating because it did not have the unhampered right to vote. Who can say that
the legislature of Alabama which set up the segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout the
state of Alabama all types of conniving methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered
voters, and there are some counties without a single Negro registered to vote, despite the fact that the
Negroes constitute a majority of the population. Can any law set up in such a state be considered
democratically structured?

These are just a few examples of unjust and just laws. There are some instances when a law is just on its
face and unjust in its application. For instance, I was arrested Friday on a charge of parading without a
permit. Now, there is nothing wrong with an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade, but when the
ordinance is used to preserve segregation and to deny citizens the First Amendment privilege of peaceful
assembly and peaceful protest, then it becomes unjust.

Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was seen sublimely in the refusal
of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar because a higher moral law
was involved. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and
the excruciating pain of chopping blocks before submitting to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire.
To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience.

We can never forget that everything 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. But I am sure that if I had lived in Germany during that time, I would have aided and comforted
my Jewish brothers even though it was illegal. If I lived in a Communist country today where certain
principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I believe I would openly advocate disobeying these
anti-religious laws.

I MUST make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess
that over the last 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 the stride toward freedom is
not the White Citizens Councillor 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 can't
agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically feels that he can set the timetable for
another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time; and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until
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.

In your statement you asserted that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they
precipitate violence. But can this assertion be logically made? Isn't this like condemning the 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 delvings precipitated the misguided
popular mind to make him drink the hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because His unique
God-consciousness and never-ceasing devotion to His will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We
must come to see, as federal courts have consistently affirmed, that it is immoral to urge an individual to
withdraw his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest precipitates violence. Society
must protect the robbed and punish the robber.
I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth of time. I received a letter this morning
from a white brother in Texas which said, "All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal
rights eventually, but is it possible that you are in too great of a religious hurry? It has taken Christianity
almost 2000 years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth." All that
is said here grows out of a tragic misconception of time. It is the strangely irrational notion that there is
something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time is neutral. It can be used
either destructively or constructively. I am coming to feel that the people of ill will have used time much
more effectively than the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the
vitriolic words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. We must
come to see that human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability. It comes through the tireless
efforts and persistent work of men willing to be coworkers with God, and without this hard work time
itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation.

YOU spoke of our activity in Birmingham as extreme. At first I was rather disappointed that fellow
clergymen would see my nonviolent efforts as those of an extremist. I started thinking about the fact that I
stand in the middle of two opposing forces in

the Negro community. One is a force of complacency made up of Negroes who, as a result of long years
of oppression, have been so completely drained of self-respect and a sense of "somebodiness" that they
have adjusted to segregation, and, on the other hand, of a few Negroes in the middle class who, because of
a degree of academic and economic security and because at points they profit by segregation, have
unconsciously become insensitive to the problems of the masses. The other force is one of bitterness and
hatred and comes perilously close to advocating violence. It is expressed in the various black nationalist
groups that are springing up over the nation, the largest and best known being Elijah Muhammad's
Muslim movement. This movement is nourished by the contemporary frustration over the continued
existence of racial discrimination. It 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 incurable devil. I
have tried to stand between these two forces, saying that we need not follow the do-nothingism of the
complacent or the hatred and despair of the black nationalist. There is a more excellent way, of love and
nonviolent protest. I'm grateful to God that, through the Negro church, the dimension of nonviolence
entered our struggle. If this philosophy had not emerged, I am convinced that by now many streets of the
South would be flowing with floods of blood. And I am further convinced that if our white brothers
dismiss as "rabble-rousers" and "outside agitators" those of us who are working through the channels of
nonviolent direct action and refuse to support our nonviolent efforts, millions of Negroes, out of
frustration and despair, will seek solace and security in black nationalist ideologies, a development that
will lead inevitably to a frightening racial nightmare.

Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The urge for freedom will eventually come. This is
what has happened to the American Negro. Something within has reminded him of his birthright of
freedom; something without has reminded him that he can gain it. Consciously and unconsciously, he has
been swept in by what the Germans call the Zeitgeist, and with his black brothers of Africa and his brown
and yellow brothers of Asia, South America, and the Caribbean, he is moving with a sense of cosmic
urgency toward the promised land of racial justice. Recognizing this vital urge that has engulfed the
Negro community, one should readily understand public demonstrations. The Negro has many pent-up
resentments and latent frustrations. He has to get them out. So let him march sometime; let him have his
prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; understand why he must have sit- ins and freedom rides. If his
repressed emotions do not come out in these nonviolent ways, they will come out in ominous expressions
of violence. This is not a threat; it is a fact of history. So I have not said to my people, "Get rid of your
discontent." But I have tried to say that this normal and healthy discontent can be channeled through the
creative outlet of nonviolent direct action. Now this approach is being dismissed as extremist. I must
admit that I was initially disappointed in being so categorized.

But as I continued to think about the matter, I gradually gained a bit of satisfaction from being considered
an extremist. Was not Jesus an extremist in love? -- "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, pray
for them that despitefully use you." Was not Amos an extremist for justice? -- "Let justice roll down like
waters and righteousness like a mighty stream." Was not Paul an extremist for the gospel of Jesus Christ?
-- "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Was not Martin Luther an extremist? -- "Here I stand;
I can do no other so help me God." Was not John Bunyan an extremist? -- "I will stay in jail to the end of
my days before I make a mockery of my conscience." Was not Abraham Lincoln an extremist? -- "This
nation cannot survive half slave and half free." Was not Thomas Jefferson an extremist? -- "We hold these
truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." So the question is not whether we will be
extremist, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate, or will we be extremists
for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice, or will we be extremists for the cause of
justice?

I had hoped that the white moderate would see this. Maybe I was too optimistic. Maybe I expected too
much. I guess I should have realized that few members of a race that has oppressed another race can
understand or appreciate the deep groans and passionate yearnings of those that have been oppressed, 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 have grasped the meaning of this social
revolution and committed themselves to it. They are still all too small in quantity, but they are big in
quality. Some, like Ralph McGill, Lillian Smith, Harry Golden, and James Dabbs, have written about our
struggle in eloquent, prophetic, and understanding terms. Others have marched with us down nameless
streets of the South. They sat in with us at lunch counters and rode in with us on the freedom rides. They
have languished in filthy roach-infested jails, suffering the abuse and brutality of angry policemen who
see them as "dirty nigger lovers." They, unlike many of their moderate brothers, have recognized the
urgency of the moment and sensed the need for powerful "action" antidotes to combat the disease of
segregation.

LET me rush on to mention my other disappointment. I have been 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 this past Sunday in welcoming Negroes to your Baptist Church worship service on a
nonsegregated basis. I commend the Catholic leaders of this state for integrating Springhill 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 that as one of those negative critics who can always find something wrong with the
church. I say it 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 life shall
lengthen.

I had the strange feeling when I was suddenly catapulted into the leadership of the bus protest in
Montgomery several years ago that we would have the support of the white church. I felt that the white
ministers, priests, and rabbis of the South would be some of our strongest allies. Instead, some few have
been outright opponents, refusing to understand the freedom movement and misrepresenting its leaders;
all 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 of the past, 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 serve as the
channel through which our just grievances could get to the power structure. I had hoped that each of you
would understand. But again I have been disappointed.

I have heard numerous religious leaders of the South call upon their worshipers to comply with a
desegregation decision because it is the law, but I have longed to hear white ministers say, follow this
decree because integration is morally right and the Negro is your brother. In the midst of blatant injustices
inflicted upon the Negro, I have watched white churches stand on the sidelines and merely 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 so many ministers say, "Those are social issues which the gospel has
nothing to do with," and I have watched so many churches commit themselves to a completely
otherworldly religion which made a strange distinction between bodies and souls, the sacred and the
secular.

There was a time when the church was very powerful. It was during that period that the early Christians
rejoiced when they were 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 the thermostat
that transformed the mores of society. Wherever the early Christians entered a town the power structure
got disturbed and immediately sought to convict them for being "disturbers of the peace" and "outside
agitators." But they went on with the conviction that they were "a colony of heaven" and had to obey God
rather than man. They were small in number but big in commitment. They were too God-intoxicated to be
"astronomically intimidated." They brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial
contest.

Things are different now. The contemporary church is so often a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain
sound. It is so often the arch supporter of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the
church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church's often vocal sanction of
things as they are.

But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If the church of today does not recapture the
sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authentic ring, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be
dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. I meet young people
every day whose disappointment with the church has risen to outright disgust.
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 presently misunderstood. We will reach the goal of
freedom in Birmingham and all over the nation, because the goal of America is freedom. Abused and
scorned though we may be, our destiny is tied up with the destiny of America. Before the Pilgrims landed
at Plymouth, we were here. Before the pen of Jefferson scratched across the pages of history the majestic
word of the Declaration of Independence, we were here. For more than two centuries our foreparents
labored here without wages; they made cotton king; and they built the homes of their masters in the midst
of brutal injustice and shameful humiliation -- and yet out of a bottomless vitality our people continue 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.

I must close now. But before closing I am impelled to mention one other point in your statement that
troubled me profoundly. You warmly commended the Birmingham police force for keeping "order" and
"preventing violence." I don't believe you would have so warmly commended the police force if you had
seen its angry violent dogs literally biting six unarmed, nonviolent Negroes. I don't believe you would so
quickly commend the policemen if you would observe their ugly and inhuman treatment of Negroes here
in the city jail; if you would watch them push and curse old Negro women and young Negro girls; if you
would see them slap and kick old Negro men and young boys, if you would observe them, as they did on
two occasions, refusing to give us food because we wanted to sing our grace together. I'm sorry that I can't
join you in your praise for the police department.

It is true that they have been rather disciplined in their public handling of the demonstrators. In this sense
they have been publicly "nonviolent." But for what purpose? To preserve the evil system of segregation.
Over the last few years I have consistently preached that nonviolence demands that the means we use
must be as pure as the ends we seek. So I have tried to make it 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 even more, to use moral means to
preserve immoral ends.

I wish you had commended the Negro demonstrators of Birmingham for their sublime courage, their
willingness to suffer, and their amazing discipline in the midst of the most inhuman provocation. One day
the South will recognize its real heroes. They will be the James Merediths, courageously and with a
majestic sense of purpose facing jeering and hostile mobs and 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 of Montgomery, Alabama, who rose up with a sense of dignity and with her
people decided not to ride the segregated buses, and responded to one who inquired about her tiredness
with ungrammatical profundity, "My feets is tired, but my soul is rested." They will be young high school
and college students, 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's 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 the best in the American dream and the most sacred values in our Judeo-Christian
heritage.
Never before have I written a letter this long -- or should I say a book? I'm afraid that 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 is there to do when you are alone for days in the dull monotony of
a narrow jail cell other than write long letters, think strange thoughts, and pray long prayers?

If I have said anything in this letter that is an understatement of the truth and is indicative of an
unreasonable impatience, I beg you to forgive me. If I have said anything in this letter that is an
overstatement of the truth and is indicative of my having a patience that makes me patient with anything
less than brotherhood, I beg God to forgive me.

Yours for the cause of Peace and Brotherhood,

MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright © 1963, Martin Luther King, Jr. All rights reserved.

The Atlantic Monthly; August 1963; The Negro Is Your Brother; Volume 212, No. 2; pages 78 - 88.