Address at the Formation of the Gandhi Society for Human Rights
Author: King, Martin Luther, Jr.
Date: May 17, 1962
Location: Washington, D.C.
Genre: Speech
Topic: Brown v. Board of Education
Civil Disobedience
Freedom Rides
Nonviolence
Details
Discussions in late 1961 between King and New York attorneys Harry Wachtel and Theodore Kheel led to the formation of the Gandhi Society for Human Rights, a tax-exempt organization aimed at educating the public about nonviolence and providing legal and financial support to the civil rights movement.1 In the following address, delivered on the eighth anniversary of the Brown decision, King describes the purpose of the new organization and announces that SCLC had asked President John F. Kennedy to issue a second Emancipation Proclamation, thereby ending all forms of segregation in the United States.2 A hundred years after Abraham Lincoln abolished slavery “with a stroke of the pen,” King argues that like Lincoln, Kennedy, too, has the power to change the lives of millions of southern blacks.3 According to King, even though the nation survived the Civil War, it continues to be plagued by issues of race as millions of qualified black voters are barred from participating in full citizenship just as their enslaved ancestors had been. As part of a growing revolution taking place all over the world, King proclaims that in America “we have the power, the resources and the moral support of the majority of the nation to institute long-delayed reforms.” In conclusion, King claims that blacks and sympathetic whites have forged an “invincible will of justice and democracy.”
This occasion might well signalize not one anniversary but several apparently disparate events. Actually they are components of one tapestry of human experience—a tapestry which depicts justice’s stubborn struggle to be dominant in the affairs of men. The historic supreme court decision on school desegregation; the threshold of the centennial anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation; the founding of the Gandhi Society for Human Rights and the 100th anniversary of the death of Henry David Thoreau are all celebrated this year.4
Thoreau has said “there are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the roots.”5 I believe that we who are here today are those striking at the root of evil, not at its branches.
It is altogether fitting that on these overlapping anniversaries of liberal triumphs a distinguished group of public citizens should form a new society dedicated to progress through non-violence. Thoreau’s anniversary reminds us that the concepts of civil disobedience and non-violence are part of the American tradition. But it is only now that its use in widespread practice has engaged the American people and established itself irrevocably as a primary social lever. Non-violence is not woven into the fabric of American life in hundreds of boycotts across the South; it is marked on the jail walls of thousands of cells of freedom riders; it sits in majestic, democratic dignity upon thousands of lunch counter stools. Non-violent protest is no longer a bizarre or alien concept. It wins battles for justice with as much lethal effectiveness as the blazing six-shooters of the old frontier or the more contemporary “punch in the jaw.” It may well mark a new stage for mankind in which his conduct acquired a more civilized quality even as he continues a bitter struggle for broader democratic freedoms.6
Because this day is so filled with historic significance, my organization, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, chose it to deliver to President Kennedy a document we consider to be a landmark contribution in the struggle for civil rights. We have asked the President, on the centennial anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation, to issue an executive order which would rededicate the nation to the principles of that noble proclamation. The rededication we seek would not be limited to hollow words, however. We ask that he proclaim all segregation statutes of all southern states to be contrary to the constitution and that the full powers of his office be employed to avoid their enforcement. Just as Abraham Lincoln made the tragic sacrifices of the civil war worth enduring when he ended human chattle slavery with a stroke of the pen, President Kennedy can change the totality of life of the Negro in the South by the issuance of this executive order we have proposed.
That the full powers of your office will be used to eliminate all forms of statutory-imposed segregation and discrimination from and throughout the respective states of this nation.
Effective January 1, 1963, that as of the school year, September 1963, all school districts presently segregated must desegregate. Such a proclamation should be accompanied by a Directive authorizing the Department of Health, Education and Welfare to immediately prepare, in consultation with local school officials, a program of integration in compliance with the mandate of Brown v. Board of Education.7
That racial segregation in Federally assisted housing is henceforth prohibited and unlawful.8
That any and all laws within the United States requiring segregation and discrimination because of race or color are contrary to the national policy of the Government of the United States and are detrimental and inimical to the best interest of the United States at home and abroad.
One hundred years ago today it was far from certain that our republic would survive. It has survived through all the turbulent upheavals of a century and the President securely occupies his office under the mandates of the constitution. But who would have thought that the President, one hundred years after the Emancipation Proclamation, would be confronted with a grotesque array of race problems? Who would have thought that despite the spectacular growth of the nation, backward and brutal institutions of segregation and discrimination would cling like ugly parasites to the ship of state? Who would have thought that the particular President in the White House in 1962 would himself have been a victim of prejudice and discrimination because he is of a minority religion?9 Who would have thought that 100 years after the Emancipation Proclamation and the enactment of the 14th amendment, millions of qualified Negroes still would have no vote and would be as totally excluded from the democratic electoral process as their slave forebears had been? Our republic did survive but it lived and grew with visible scars which a century still has failed to heal.
One hundred years is a long time. Even one year is too long if you are deprived of your rights. Even one day is too long. We believe with the Supreme Court that “justice too long delayed is justice denied.”10
That is why we are here today. That is why Thoreau’s observation about striking at branches or roots is so pertinent. For so long, so many have grimly torn away branches of evil only to find they were to grow again. The day has come to dig to the roots and put an end to these evils for all time.
All over this seething world stubborn roots of injustice are being ripped from deep soil frequently with fire and sword. Over a billion people are proclaiming a permanent end to an intolerable existence. We are busily engaged seeking new policies, experimenting with varied forms of aid, sitting at countless counsel tables, designing and planning far-reaching changes. Yet here at home we have the power, the resources and the moral support of the majority of the nation to institute long-delayed reforms which would transform the restricted lives of tens of millions of our own citizens. We need only the will and the leadership of our government to act and we will initiate a new century of growth. It is interesting that today our nation is deeply concerned with foreign trade, the preservation and expansion of our foreign markets.11 It would be well not to forget that we enjoyed our greatest industrial growth during the 19th century in the development of our internal market, particularly to the west. We still have great reserves of an internal market among the 20 million Negro citizens whose present living standards are less than half of the national average.12
While on the subject of economic growth, it might be pertinent to ask if today the prosperous leaders of the south, who are boastful of its new growth, would like to return to the old order. Would they like to go back to the anti-bellum south—would they restore slavery if they could and with it the limitations it imposed upon the development of the whole region? Of course their answer would be no. Looking forward from today it can still be said that the potential of the south remains restricted by an outworn as well as unjust “peculiar institution.”13 Indeed, let us say it frankly and candidly. When the south is freed from institutionalized injustice it will first realize its full potential socially, politically and economically. Many southern leaders are pathetically trapped by their own devices. They have pandered to the lowest passion to develop political support, proclaiming themselves faithful and devoted to segregation and discrimination. Yet many of them know that the perpetuation of this archaic, dying order is hindering the rapid growth of the south. Yet they cannot speak this truth—they are imprisoned by their own lies. It is history’s wry paradox that when Negroes win their struggle to be free those who have held them down will themselves be freed for the first time.14
We know where we were 100 years ago—we know where we are today. Where will our nation be 100 years from now? We can bend its moral arc towards justice if we unroot the twisted tangle of evil statutes which unlawfully deprived Negroes of elementary rights. To that noble task nearly 20 million Negroes are dedicated—millions of sincere white Americans stand with us—the invincible will of justice and democracy undergird our struggle. All of the armies of the earth—all of the parliaments—all of the presidents, prime ministers and kings—are not stronger than one single moral idea which tenaciously demands fulfillment.15 That fulfillment will come because from the first day an American farmer shouldered a musket for liberty, to this day, a national character was being formed, which could grow only if it lived in a climate of decency and fair play.16 That fulfillment will come because America must do it to remain American in the next 100 years.
1. For more on King’s discussions with Wachtel and Kheel, see King to Wachtel, 7 November 1961 and 12 February 1962, pp. 325–327 and pp. 397–398 in this volume, respectively. Kheel was the Society’s first president, while Clarence B. Jones served as acting executive director. King, who did not have a formal role in the organization, was honorary chairman. Twenty-five people agreed to serve on the executive board (“Gandhi Society for Rights Formed; King Presents Documents to JFK,” Atlanta Daily World, 20 May 1962).
2. Washington SCLC representative Walter Fauntroy gave the proposal to Brooks Hays, special assistant to the president, who reportedly said that Kennedy would take a “great deal of interest in the document” and would “be sympathetic to the sentiments expressed within” (King, “An Appeal to the Honorable John F. Kennedy, President of the United States for National Rededication to the Principles of the Emancipation Proclamation and for an Executive Order,” 17 May 1962; Wallace Terry, “Race Group to Stress Gandhi Non-Violence,” Washington Post, 18 May 1962). At a press conference following his address, King clarified that the Gandhi Society was not a “direct action” organization, nor would it be concerned with the use of nonviolence on an international scale, but rather an organization aimed at solving race issues in the United States (King, Excerpts, Press conference on the formation of the Gandhi Society for Human Rights and the appeal for a second Emancipation Proclamation, 17 May 1962). A month after the luncheon, Jones sent a memorandum to the society’s board members highlighting the “adaptation of Gandhi’s Satyagraha or ‘truth force’” as the foundation of the new organization (Jones, Memo, “The formation of the Gandhi Society for Human Rights, Inc.,” 20 June 1962). For more on King’s request for Kennedy to sign a second Emancipation Proclamation, see note 18, King, “The Negro and the American Dream,” Emancipation Day Address Delivered at Municipal Auditorium, 2 January 1961, p. 118 in this volume.
3. Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on 1 January 1863.
4. Henry David Thoreau (1817–1862) was an American author, philosopher, and abolitionist.
5. Cf. Thoreau, Walden: or, Life in the Woods (Boston: Ticknor and Fields, 1854), p. 82.
6. In King’s draft of this address, he handwrote at the end of this paragraph: “This society will assist in a very significant way in educating the public on the [many?]” (King, Draft, Address at the formation of the Gandhi Society for Human Rights, 17 May 1962).
7. In a press conference after his speech, King further explained that the executive order would “declare in firm, crystal clear terms that segregation is against the national policy of the United States and against the best interests morally and politically of our country” (King, Excerpts, Press conference, 17 May 1962). At the president’s weekly press briefing also on 17 May 1962, Kennedy responded to a reporter who asked if progress in school desegregation was occurring fast enough: “Well, I think we can always hope that more progress can be made in the area of civil rights, or equal opportunity, whether it’s in employment or education or housing or anything else. There is a good deal left undone, and while progress has been made I think we can always improve equality of opportunity in the United States” (Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: John F. Kennedy, 1962 [Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963], p. 404). Although no formal decree or order was issued, President Kennedy announced on 9 September 1963 that 144 school districts in eleven Southern states peacefully desegregated their public schools since 1954. In spite of other states’ progress, Alabama under Governor George C. Wallace refused to comply with federal integration laws (Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: John F. Kennedy, 1963 [Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1964], pp. 661–662; William O. Bryant, “Kennedy Warns Wallace, U.S. Will do Whatever Necessary to Desegregate Schools in Alabama,” Atlanta Daily World, 10 September 1963).
8. Although the executive order ending discrimination in federally funded housing was ready for Kennedy’s signature in November 1961, he held off signing it for fear of losing support among Southern members of Congress for his tariff program. In a March 1962 article published in The Nation, King criticized Kennedy for refusing to sign the initial draft of the order: “In backing away from an Executive Order to end discrimination in housing, the President did more to undermine confidence in his intentions than could be offset by a series of smaller accomplishments during the year” (King, “Fumbling on the New Frontier,” 3 March 1962, p. 413 in this volume). Kennedy eventually issued Executive Order 11063 on 20 November 1962.
9. During Kennedy’s 1960 presidential bid, some critics, particularly in the South, expressed concern that Kennedy, a Catholic, might be unduly influenced by the Roman Catholic Church (Edward T. Folliard, “Kennedy’s Religion Held Rising Factor,” Washington Post, 24 August 1960; Cabell Phillips, “The Catholic Issue: Use of Religion against Kennedy in South May Help Him in the North,” New York Times, 4 September 1960). Before the Ministerial Association of Houston, Senator Kennedy addressed concerns about his religious affiliation, claiming that there are far more important issues for which the country should be concerned. Although he questioned why his religion would be important to anyone other than himself, Kennedy emphatically stated: “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute—where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishoners for whom to vote.” He also warned that while today he is the “victim,” tomorrow “it may be you” (“Text of Kennedy’s Address Before Ministerial Association in Houston,” Washington Post, 13 September 1960). Responding to the attacks on Kennedy, King told reporters that he doubted that African American voters would object to any candidate on the basis of religion and drew the conclusion that “individuals who are anti-Catholic are usually anti-Negro” (“Negro Vote Seen Mostly on Rights,” New York Times, 15 September 1960).
10. The quote is most often attributed to William Gladstone, leader of the House of Commons and Chancellor of the Exchequer, who made a similar remark during a 16 March 1868 address to the House of Commons: “But, above all, if we be just men, we shall go forward in the name of truth and right, bearing this in mind—that, when the case is proved and the hour is come, justice delayed is justice denied.” It has also been linked to William Penn, Fruits of Solitude in Reflections and Maxims Relating to the Conduct of Human Life (1682): “Our law says well, ‘To delay justice, is injustice.’”
11. At his 1962 State of the Union Address, Kennedy lobbied for passage of a foreign trade bill, which would give his administration latitude in negotiating the reduction and removal of tariffs with the European Economic Community (Public Papers of the Presidents: John F. Kennedy, 1962, pp. 14–15). Kennedy signed the Trade Expansion Act on 11 October 1962.
12. The 1960 U.S. Census reported that the annual median income of the average white man, between the ages of 25 and 64, was $5,278, while nonwhite men of the same age range earned $3,037 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Population: 1960; Subject Reports: Occupation by Earnings and Education [Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963], pp. 2–3).
13. The “peculiar institution” was a euphemism for slavery popularized by Civil War historian Kenneth M. Stampp’s 1956 book, The Peculiar Institution: Slavery in the Ante-bellum South (New York: Knopf).
14. In his draft, King handwrote: “The problem of racial injustice will not be solved until enough.”
15. In King’s draft the following sentence begins with an introductory clause: “I have faith to believe.”
16. King’s draft included the following additional sentence: “Before it comes some will get scarred up a bit.”
Source: MLKP-MBU, Martin Luther King, Jr., Papers, 1954–1968, Howard Gotlieb Archival Research Center, Boston University, Boston, Mass.