Lecture Delivered to Christian Ethics Class at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and Question and Answer Period
Author: King, Martin Luther, Jr.
Date: April 19, 1961?
Location: Louisville, Ky.?
Genre: Speech
Topic: Civil Disobedience
Martin Luther King, Jr. - Political and Social Views
Nonviolence
Details
After delivering “The Church on the Frontier of Racial Tension” at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (SBTS) chapel, King answers questions regarding nonviolence, black nationalism, and civil disobedience from an audience of approximately 500 students.1 Distinguishing between private property and privately owned but publicly used enterprises, King postulates that America will not “rise to its full maturity” until all businesses no longer discriminate on the basis of race or color. When a business owner has the “freedom to choose his customers on the basis of race or religion,” King says, freedom is taken “too far.” Although King’s visit drew positive responses from the students and faculty, it prompted a backlash from within Southern Baptist circles, including the withdrawal of donations earmarked for the seminary by several churches.2 In response to the criticism, the SBTS board of trustees and seminary president Duke McCall released a statement expressing “regret for any offense caused by the recent visit of The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.”3 Due to the poor quality of the audio recording, the questions from the audience could not be heard; the following transcript reflects only King’s answers.
[King]: Thank you very kindly, Dr. Barnette and to the other faculty members who are here and to all of the members of the student body who are here.4 I’m very happy to have this privilege, and I want most of this period to be your period. You’ve heard me talk long enough; I happen to be a Baptist preacher and I find it very difficult to control my time and face these time limits. As I go around the country preaching, they often send me a letter saying, “You will have twenty minutes for the sermon.” And of course I find it much more difficult to preach a twenty-minute sermon than I do to preach an hour sermon. I have to prepare a little more to preach a twenty-minute sermon than an hour, you know that. [laughter] But I’m sure you’ll have questions that you would like to raise concerning the whole question of integration and desegregation and also questions concerning the method being used and the movement generally, and I will be very happy to try to answer them. I must say to you in advance that I have no pretense to omniscience. I don’t know everything. And I can only say that I’ll try to answer the questions that you raise as we go on in this common search for truth and this common search for a solution to this big problem.
I would like to say just briefly something about the method that I have tried to advocate along with many, many other leaders in this struggle. There are three characteristic ways that oppressed people can deal with their oppression. Take one way, is to acquiesce, to resign oneself to the fate of oppression. And this method has been used through history. You remember when Moses was leading the children of Israel out of Egypt toward the Promised Land and they got out into the wilderness, there were some who wanted to go back to Egypt.5 They preferred the flesh pots of Egypt to the challenges ahead. I remember when I was coming up in Atlanta, there was a man who used to play a guitar, and he had favorite songs that he would sing, and one day I discovered that he was singing a little song like this: “Been down so long that down don’t bother me.”6 Now, there a lot of people that get to this point; they achieve the freedom of exhaustion. And [laughter] this is, but of course this isn’t the way because noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good.7
The second method that has been used is that of corroding hatred and physical violence. And of course we know about this method. It has been something of the inseparable twin of Western materialism and the hallmark of its grandeur. And I would not say at all that violence has never worked in the sense that it has never brought about a temporary victory. I know that nations have often received independence through the use of violence, and it has worked temporarily. But I would go on to say that although it may bring about temporary victory, it never brings permanent peace. And violence ends up creating many more social problems than it solves.
But there is a third way: mainly nonviolent resistance. And this is a method which makes it possible for the individual to stand up against an unjust system, to resist that system, and yet not hate in the process and not use violence in the process. Now, there are many things that can be said for this method. First, it gives one the possibility of working for a moral end through moral means. And this is where nonviolent resistance would break with all of those systems that would argue that the end justifies the means. I remember some time ago, when the student movement first started, a former president of the United States, the only thing he said about it was that it was Communism inspired, and I’m sure that students all over were very insulted by that.8 Number one, it’s an insult on one’s intelligence to say to him that if somebody’s standing on his neck, he doesn’t have the intelligence to rise up against it and protest unless Mr. [Nikita] Khrushchev of Russia comes over and tells him that somebody’s standing on his neck. But the other reason is even more deeper than that, and that is that this is a spiritual movement. It has a spiritualistic worldview rejecting the materialistic worldview of Communism and also rejecting the ethical relativism of Communism. [Vladimir] Lenin said on one occasion that any method is justifiable in order to bring about the classless society. So he says lying, deceit, violence, anything, just as long as it brings about the classless society that he talks about.9
But in the method of nonviolent resistance, when one is committed to it as a way of life, he does not succumb to the temptation of believing that an immoral, that immoral means can bring about moral ends, because he realizes that the end is pre-existent in the means. And the method of nonviolence makes it possible for one to seek to secure moral ends through moral means. It also makes it possible for one to struggle with determination to break down the unjust system and yet not defeat the individuals who may be caught up in that unjust system. So one who is committed to this method seeks to defeat segregation and not the segregationists; he seeks to convert the segregationist. And this is the tragedy of violence, you see; it seeks to annihilate the opponent rather than convert the opponent. Another thing about it is that it says that you must not only avoid internal violence, I mean external physical violence but also internal violence of spirit. And this is something of the love ethic that I talked about this morning.10
And as you know, Mohandas K. Gandhi who made, who used this method in a magnificent way to free his people from the domination of the British Empire, was greatly influenced by the Sermon on the Mount. And he read the Sermon on the Mount, he said that this was one of the most moving experiences of his life, particularly the part that says turn the other cheek and the other: resist not evil, resist the evil not with evil but with good.11 And these aspects and these teachings within the Sermon on the Mount greatly influenced Gandhi. And I do remember, I do know when we started our movement in Montgomery, Alabama, long before the people heard the name of Mohandas K. Gandhi and Mahatma Gandhi, they had heard of Christ, and we made it very clear that this was a movement of Christian love. This was a movement based on the Christian ethic of love. And this is why I say that our movement there received its spirit and its inspiration from Christ and its operational technique from Gandhi. So that it is very important, I think, to get over that when we, to get over the point that when we talk about nonviolence, we are not merely talking about something that was advocated and used by Gandhi of India but also by Jesus of Nazareth. And I think that this is a very important aspect of nonviolence.
Now, nonviolence also says—and this is the final point I want to bring out—that there is an element of good, that is, that there are amazing potentialities for goodness within human nature and that it is possible for human beings to be transformed. This is basic in nonviolence. Now, I don’t think it is necessary to be superficial in one’s optimism at this point, and I think at times those who have believed in nonviolence have been a little too superficial in their optimism concerning human nature. Man is not all good; there is some, some bad in him. Carlyle said on one occasion that there are heights in man which go up to the highest heaven and depths which go down to the lowest hell, “for are not both Heaven and Hell made out of him, everlasting Miracle and Mystery that he is?”12 And I think there is this aspect of man’s nature that we must at least think about when we think of the nonviolent way. It’s not enough to just say that man, man has potentialities for goodness; we must say man has potentialities for evil also and be realistic in our anthropology. So, I don’t want to give anybody the impression that in order to believe in this philosophy of nonviolence, it is necessary to go to the extreme that even liberalism within Protestantism has often gone to of seeing man evolving up some ladder of goodness that will finally be worked out in the long run of things. The fact is that we have too much evidence to refute this. But man does have potentialities for goodness as well as potentialities for evil, and the nonviolent resister believes that these things can be brought out and that the image of God is not totally destroyed. Man is not totally depraved. Although the image is terribly scarred, there is a possibility to transform human nature. And so these are just some of the things about the basic philosophy of nonviolence that I wanted to mention. Now I’m sure that you would like to raise some questions about the more practical aspects of the technique itself and the rightness of this method and the practicality of it. So with these introductory remarks I will turn it over to you to start firing the questions.
[Indecipherable Question]
[King]: Yes on the first question. I don’t know what will be done in Atlanta, whether this will be repeated in Atlanta. Up to now, it hasn’t been discussed; I mean it hasn’t been definitely planned for May seventeenth. There is a possibility that something will be done on May seventeenth in Atlanta.13 However, on a larger scale, May seventeenth is a very significant day in the Negro community, as well as in the white community for those who are allies in this struggle. Many demonstrations across the country take place on this day as a reminder to the nation that we have not fulfilled the American dream, we have not implemented the Supreme Court’s decision. So that I’m sure there will be demonstrations in various sections of the country to dramatize this issue and the need to move on toward implementing the Supreme Court’s decision.14
The second, on the second point, we have sought conferences with many Southern governors who have turned us down. I know in Alabama we sought conferences with Governor [John] Patterson, who consistently turned us down. The same thing in Georgia; we’ve tried to see Governor [S. Ernest] Vandiver, and he has turned us down. I have not sought personally, and I can’t speak for others, to discuss this matter with Senator [Herman Eugene] Talmadge or [Richard] Russell of Georgia. But we have contacted other senators, and there’s always a convenient way to just turn Negro groups down when they seek conferences with the political leaders. Now, I would imagine that there would be a great difference here in, say, I know in border states but even in the middle states—and when I say “middle states,” I’m thinking of Tennessee, North Carolina, Texas, Florida, and Virginia—there would probably be no difficulty here. I think the governors of these states on the whole would see Negro leaders and talk with them about the problem and probably the senators in these states. But in the Deep South, we do have this problem of the political leaders not being too open to conversations with Negro leaders.
Now, on the third question concerning the efficacy or rather the morality of the boycott technique, I can only say that it is a matter of intent here. I have never seen the boycott as a violent method. Certainly those who use it are not participating in physical violence. It’s not physical violence, so that automatically says it isn’t violence in a physical sense, and we have always said that we shouldn’t have any violence of spirit when we go into boycotts. We stress the need for loving and maintaining this understanding goodwill so that the intent is not to destroy, not to put anybody out of business. The intent is to put justice in business and really to make a better business because if these values are broken down, these merchants will make more money. And this is why I, it is a matter of intent. I have never seen it just as a negative something that you do because you hate the merchant or you’re trying to put him out of business. But it is a massive withdrawal of support from a system of evil in order to bring about some ultimate change and transformation, and certainly, we hope we will convert some of the merchants in the process. It is noncooperation with an unjust system and certainly not any attempt to destroy the individuals who are caught up in this unjust system. Now, we know that some people as a result of boycotts suffer on both sides. In Atlanta, when we had the boycott, three hundred and some people lost their jobs.15 They would come to see me almost every day to help them get jobs. I mean Negro people who worked at these lunch counters. And this is something of the risk and something of the temporary sacrifice that you must go through in order to bring about the social change and transformation that we are seeking. But just to come back to this point, I don’t think the boycott is fighting fire with fire, because the intention is not to defeat the merchant, not to put him out of business, but to make for a better business and to bring justice and freedom and human dignity into business which will make for a better society for everybody.
[Indecipherable Question]
[King]: Well, I would only, I could only say that there are two types of laws. There are just laws and there are unjust laws. I would be the first person to say to everybody, “Obey just laws.” Now, that not just, that puts us into the position of asking what are just laws and what are unjust laws. I would say that a just law is a law that squares with the moral law of the universe. A just law is a man-made law that is in line with what the religionist would call the law of God. Well, somebody would say, “Well, that’s too abstract; that doesn’t have any relevance in concrete terms. Well, what in the world do you mean by the law of God and the moral law?”
So, you would have to move to something maybe more concrete terms for some people. And I would certainly think that any law that degrades human personality is unjust from a moral point of view. But I would say in just sheer practical terms, any law in which the majority imposes a code on the minority that it does not impose on itself is an unjust law. On the other hand, a just law is when the majority imposes a code on the minority that it imposes on itself. You can go on to say an unjust law is one in which the majority imposes a code on the minority that that minority had no part in creating or enacting because that minority had no right to vote. So the legislatures of most of the states in the Deep South are not even democratically elected. And on the other hand, the just law would be the law in which you do have these things existing, where people have the right to vote, they’re democratically elected, where the majority imposes a code on the minority that it imposes on itself.
Now, after one clears this up, I think we see that you do have two types of laws here; you have just and unjust laws. I urge everybody to obey just laws. I also say that a Christian not only has a right but a responsibility to stand up against an unjust law. But now in doing this, he must do it peacefully; he must do it nonviolently; he must do it in a loving spirit; and he must be willing to accept the penalty. He must not seek to evade the law; he must not seek to subvert the law; he must do it openly. He must not seek to defy the law, because he becomes an anarchist then. But the individual who decides to break a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and willingly, cheerfully, and voluntarily accepts the penalty is at that moment expressing the highest respect for law. And he is not an anarchist, but he’s expecting, expressing the very highest respect for law. Now, what we see in the Deep South today is not civil disobedience but uncivil disobedience. It is defying the law; it is evading the law and an unwillingness to accept the penalty. But he who is willing to do this and go to jail if necessary and stay there in order to arouse the conscience of the community so that that unjust law will be altered and finally brought to the point that the law squares with the moral law, that person is expressing the very highest respect for law.
Now, let me mention just a few instances of this. It’s nothing new about it. There’s nothing new about this. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. The early Christians, the master of the art of civil disobedience, they did not obey the Roman law; they just refused. They were thrown to the lions for this. They would not bow down and worship the gods that the Roman Empire wanted them to worship. They were determined to worship Christ, and they disobeyed a law, and they were often killed for it. They were disobeying the law that conscience told them was unjust.
Let us move on up to the modern day. Everything that Hitler did in Germany was legal—end quote. Everything that the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was illegal—end quotes. It was a crime to aid and comfort the Jewish people during the days of Hitler. I believe that if I had lived in Germany, if I had the attitude that I have now, I would have disobeyed the law. I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. In South Africa today, apartheid is the law of the land, and I would be the first person to say to the African people, if you can organize yourself to disobey the extreme laws of white supremacy in South Africa, you should do it.
In our own history, the Boston Tea Party was a noble example of civil disobedience. The Underground Railroad—most of the abolitionists practiced civil disobedience. If I lived in a Communist country today where certain Christian customs cannot take place in Christian worship—I would urge people to disobey the law where they couldn’t have Christian baptism and they couldn’t have Christian communion. I would just say, “Disobey this law.” So that I think that the students today in disobeying laws that they know are unjust are really in noble company. They are in the company of people throughout history. And I, this is the way I justify it, and this is my basic philosophy on it.
[Indecipherable Question]
[King]: No, I cannot conceive of a situation where it would be better to renounce the nonviolent method and turn to violence. Now, I have sense enough to know that there will be times that people, individuals will renounce the nonviolent method and turn to violence, but still I would have to say that I don’t think it is the best method from a practical point of view or a moral point of view. I think it is both impractical and immoral. And even if it were expedient in a particular instance, I would still say that it would be morally wrong. So that I would be absolute in my position at this point in saying that violence is absolutely wrong in our struggle, morally wrong, and I think, as I said, I think it’s impractical. And particularly in America where we’re seeking integration.
Integration is much more complex and even difficult than independence, because in one instance you are seeking to drive a foreign invader out. In the instance of our struggle in America, it’s not driving a foreign invader out, but it’s seeking a new level of creative life and existence with the very people that you’re going to have to live with the very minute the struggle ends. You’re going to have to live with these same people tomorrow morning at nine o’clock if segregation ends at eight o’clock tonight. Where in a colonial struggle, you are driving another force out that has dominated politically and otherwise. And I think in our situation it is even more imperative to practice nonviolence because we have this job of living with the very people and being friends with the very people that we are struggling against at this time. You can be next with the—
[Indecipherable Question]
[King]: Well I’m an extremist. [laughter] I believe in the extreme of love, not the extreme of hate, I believe in the extreme of goodwill and not the extreme of ill will. I’m never worried about being an extremist. I think the world is in great need of extremists, and I say that very seriously.16 But the other thing that I would like to say and a context is that it is not right to equate the NAACP with the White Citizens’ Council, and I think this has too often been done. The NAACP has done nothing but work through the most dignified channels of legal democracy to make justice a reality for Negro people. It has not been an organization that advocated violence; it hasn’t been an organization that advocated hatred; it has gone through the very dignified channels of the courts to achieve citizenship rights for Negro people. The NAACP is seeking to live in line with the Constitution of the United States. It’s seeking to bring about the birth of justice, where in the White Citizens’ Council, or Councils, are standing against the Constitution of the United States. They are, through their vitriolic expressions, they are creating the atmosphere for violence. They would say they don’t advocate violence, but their defiance of the law and their words inevitably create the atmosphere for violence. So that they are seeking to prevent the birth of freedom and justice in society, wherein the NAACP is seeking in a very disciplined way to bring into being the fulfillment of the Constitution of the United States.
And therefore I don’t think the two should be equated. I think one is in line with the highest traditions of our nation, wherein I think the other is out of line with all that is noble and all that is true in our democratic dream. And I would say that people of goodwill should join and should cooperate with the NAACP. I’m very proud to be a life member of the NAACP. I’m not an official of the organization, but I’m very proud of it because I think the NAACP has done more than any other organization to achieve citizenship rights for Negroes, and I think it has served as the one organization to keep Negroes from turning to some extreme group like the Muslims or to some extreme philosophy as Communism or some foreign ideology.17 It’s the one organization that reminded the Negro that he could achieve his rights and his justice through these channels. And it gave him a way out wherein if he did not have something like this, he would have turned to Communism and other systems and other forms of, or other methods rather, that would have defeated in the long run the real democratic process.
Gentleman in the back is next.
[Indecipherable Question]
[King]: Well, I would say that we must continue to condemn the philosophy of this movement. And all of the major Negro leaders do condemn the philosophy of the black nationalist movement generally; there are about five of them. We must condemn the philosophy and the fact that they too can create the atmosphere for violence and very bitter feelings. So on the one hand, we will continue, I’m sure, to condemn the basic philosophy.
On the other hand, this movement came into being as a result of something. It is symptomatic of the frustration, the discontent, the disappointment of Negro people. And while we condemn the philosophy, we must work with vigor and new determination to remove the conditions that brought such a movement into being. And that means the federal government must do this, white people of goodwill must do this, and Negroes must do this.
The other thing is this: it should also bring us to see now that the leaders that we’ve been calling extremists and the leaders that we’ve been, movements that we’ve been calling extremist movements are really moderating influences within the Negro community. I know it’s a difficult adjustment for some people to see that sit-ins serve as moderating influences. But it’s one of the creative developments that people who have not seen a way out now see a way out nonviolently. And they’ve come to see that they don’t have to hate to get free, and they don’t have to use violence. So that it should help people of goodwill to support more these organizations and leaders that are guiding the Negro community into a channel of creative love and nonviolence and all of that.
The other thing I’d like to say is that I don’t believe that this movement will ever have any great growth or great gains in the Negro community. It, right now it isn’t as large as we would think because we hear a lot about it. It’s the kind of movement that will get a great deal of publicity anyway, no matter how small it is. But I don’t believe that it will ever reach or influence the vast majority of Negroes. I think the predominant sentiment in the Negro community is opposed to this. We don’t want to substitute one tyranny for another; we don’t want get away from one kind of segregation and get into another kind of segregation. They said there’s the most recent book out on this movement and probably the most definitive estimates the numbers at a hundred thousand.18 The FBI estimates that it’s sixty thousand. Now this sounds maybe large, but this is very small when you think of the fact that you have more than nineteen million Negroes in the United States. I can think of ten Negro churches in the United States with a hundred thousand members. And so that this is not large when you think of the number; it shows that it has not had a great impact. And the thing that amazes me is not how many people they’ve appealed to or they’ve gained, but how many they haven’t gained. So that I don’t think it will ever have any impact in terms of large numbers of Negroes, but I do think it will continue to exist and will continue to appeal to certain people as long as the conditions of discrimination exist, as long as the Negro faces all of these economic injustices and the other problems that I mentioned this morning.19
[Indecipherable Question]
[King]: On the first question, I would say that there is a distinction between private property that is purely private and private property that is privately owned but publicly used, publicly supported, publicly sustained. I think there is a great difference between the two. I think the anti-trespass law is all right, for instance, because I don’t think anybody should have the right to just come in my house that I may privately own and not leave if I wanted them to leave. I think that that’s a private right that we should certainly protect on the basis of the First Amendment to the Constitution. But now if I turn my house into a store, if I turn it into a department store, if I turn it into a lunch counter or anything like that, then I have certain obligations to the public beyond my particular whims and caprices. For instance, if I deny, this is what was said in the Sherman anti-trespass act, that if a business is in the public market it cannot deny access, if it’s in the public market it cannot deny access to this public market.20 And I think the same thing applies here. It’s one thing to say that you own a, that an individual owns a private piece of property and another thing to say that this property is now a private enterprise, where it is actually dependent on the public for its very survival. And this is why we feel very strong about this: that a man should not have the right to say that on the basis of color or religion, one cannot use a lunch counter that is open to everybody else in another racial group but not to these particular people; he has an obligation to the public. Now, I certainly wouldn’t mind if they had some stipulation that people drunk couldn’t come there, that people disorderly in that sense, but on the basis of race and religion, I don’t think America will ever rise to its full maturity until all over this country we say that anybody who is in a public business cannot deny anybody, on the basis of race or color, access to that business. He should not have the freedom to choose his customers on the basis of race or religion, and I think this has really taken freedom too far.
On the second point, I think it may be an economic risk, I don’t know how great, for a church to integrate. It may be an economic risk for a church where you have most of the people are believing in segregation. On the other hand, I think we have another obligation. We are citizens of two worlds. And there is something that says to us at all times that we must always move on the basis of our commitment to the kingdom of God and not merely on the expedient, on the basis of the expedient, what happens to be expedient for the moment. And I think in the long run, even in these situations where there may be some economic losses, there is this great gain that comes from committing oneself to the basic precept of the kingdom and committing oneself to the teachings of Jesus Christ. I think this is more important than thinking in terms of the economic side of it.
[Dr. Barnette]: We regret that the time is up. And Dr. King, we express again our deep appreciation for your coming and lecturing to the class today. [applause]
1. The seminary invited King to speak on “some such topic as ‘Christianity Confronts Race Relationships’” as part of its Julius Brown Gay Lectureship series (Allen Willis Graves to King, 1 June 1960). Following the question and answer session, King addressed the faculty, then presented a petition signed by an estimated 251 seminary students supporting desegregated facilities to the mayor’s committee on integration in downtown Louisville. He concluded his afternoon by speaking at Quinn Chapel AME Church in support of the local sit-in campaign to desegregate restaurants in the downtown area. A week after King’s visit, demonstrations escalated, prompting mayor Bruce Hoblitzell to call for downtown restaurants to desegregate by 1 May (“Police Brutality, Racial Violence Now Very Evident,” Louisville Defender, 27 April 1961; Ora Spaid, “Dr. King Says ‘Segregation Is Dead,’” Louisville Courier-Journal, 20 April 1961).
2. Baptist Press, Press release, “King’s seminary talk draws Alabama critic,” 28 April 1961. SBTS Christian ethics professor Nolan Howington afterward wrote that “the standing ovation which [the students] gave you at the conclusion of your second message is indicative of the genuineness of their appreciation for your spirit and for your grasp of a very perplexing problem” (Howington to King, 21 April 1961). Among other critics, W. D. Malone, chairman of the board of trustees of the First Baptist Church of Dothan, Alabama, wrote that if the seminary persists “in entertaining or encouraging those attempting to upset the good relation of the races in the South, I shall feel it my duty—insofar as I can—to strongly oppose any financial support for the Seminary” (Malone to Duke McCall, 15 May 1961). In a later letter, Malone expressed his fear that if “certain religious leaders generally continue their open and covert efforts to induce the South to accept integration, then the Southern Baptist Convention will be crippled, many good men will lost their pastorates, many churches dwindle and our church-supported institutions will lose prestige and much financial support” (Malone to McCall, 5 July 1961). McCall later estimated that King’s visit cost the seminary between $200,000 and $500,000 in contributions (McCall to Henlee H. Barnette, 1 June 1993).
3. Baptist Press, Press release, “Southern trustees make King statement,” 9 August 1961. The press release also quotes a letter from SBTS board of trustees chairman Ernest L. Honts: “You may be assured of our primary desire to place the advancement of the cause of Christ through our beloved denomination above any force which might attempt to divide us.”
4. Henlee H. Barnette (1911–2004) taught Christian ethics at SBTS from 1951 to 1977.
5. Exodus 10.
6. Blues singer Ishman Bracey’s 1931 recording of “Trouble Hearted Blues” included the following lyrics: “Down so long, down don’t worry me.” Billie Holiday’s 1954 recording of “Stormy Blues” had similar lyrics: “I’ve been down so long that down don’t worry me.”
7. Cf. M. K. Gandhi, Satyagraha (Ahmadabad: Navajivan Publishing House, 1951), p. 165: “Non-cooperation with evil is as much a duty as co-operation with good.” See also Gandhi, “The Poet’s Anxiety,” Young India, 1 June 1921.
8. Among other critics, former president Harry S. Truman claimed that the 1960 sit-ins were engineered by Communists (King to Harry S. Truman, 19 April 1960, in Papers 5:437–439).
9. Robert J. McCracken, “What Should Be the Christian Attitude to Communism?,” in Questions People Ask (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1951), pp. 168–169: “‘We must be ready,’ wrote Lenin, ‘to employ trickery, deceit, lawbreaking, withholding and concealing truth.’” King frequently used McCracken as a source for his sermon material. For more on King’s reference to Questions People Ask, see King, Index of Sermon Topics, 20 February–4 May 1951, in Papers 6:119.
10. King, “The Church on the Frontier of Racial Tension,” Lecture delivered at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 19 April 1961: “Now, many people ask me over and over again, ‘What do you mean when you say love these people who are oppressing you, these people who will bomb your home and threaten your children, and seek to block your desires and aspirations for freedom, what do you mean when you say love them?’ And I always have to stop and try to define the meaning of love in this context.”
11. Cf. Matthew 5–7; Gandhi, An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth (Boston: Beacon Press 1957), p. 68.
12. Cf. Thomas Carlyle, The French Revolution (1837), vol. 3, book 1, chap. 4.
13. On 17 May 1960, the sixth anniversary of the Brown decision, approximately 1,500 students in Atlanta attempted to march to the state Capitol but were turned away by highway patrol and city police. The students then marched to Wheat Street Baptist Church, where they were addressed by King (Claude Sitton, “Atlantans Block Negro Marchers,” New York Times, 18 May 1960).
14. On 17 May 1954, the Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education that segregated schools were unconstitutional. Three years later, some 20,000 demonstrators congregated at the Prayer Pilgrimage for Freedom in Washington, D.C., to push for the federal government to enforce the decision. For King’s address at the 1957 Prayer Pilgrimage, see King, “Give Us the Ballot,” Address Delivered at the Prayer Pilgrimage for Freedom, 17 May 1957, in Papers 4:208, 210–215.
15. In exchange for ending the sit-ins and other boycotts of downtown businesses in Atlanta, black leaders and local business owners in March 1961 agreed to desegregate by the fall of 1961 (“Atlanta’s Sit-ins Ended by Accord,” New York Times, 8 March 1961). For more on the Atlanta sit-in agreement, see Introduction, pp. 4–5 in this volume.
16. King, “The Church on the Frontier of Racial Tension”: “I think that all men of goodwill must be maladjusted to all of these things, for it may well be that the salvation of our world lies in the hands of the maladjusted.”
17. Since 1958 Kivie Kaplan, board member of the NAACP, had unsuccessfully tried to recruit King to join the organization’s national board (see King to Kaplan, 6 March 1961, pp. 172–174 in this volume; see note 1, King to Kaplan, 3 May 1960, in Papers 5:451).
18. King likely refers to C. Eric Lincoln’s The Black Muslims in America (Boston: Beacon Press, 1961), p. 4.
19. In “The Church on the Frontier of Racial Tension,” King discussed the gap between white and African American incomes, automation, and segregation in churches as “injustices” where “the church must go out and take a stand.”
20. Initially passed in 1890, the Sherman Antitrust Act prohibited trusts and illegal monopolies that could be shown to restrain competition. In 1961 the U.S. Justice Department began investigating whether restrictive housing covenants violated the Sherman Antitrust Act, which also makes illegal any contract that imposes unreasonable constraints on trade or commerce.
Source: MLKEC-INP, Martin Luther King, Jr. Estate Collection.