During times of political turmoil, very few ever had the courage to face the injustice. Courage such as that is few and far between. Two of these outliers were Henry Thoreau and Martin Luther King. Henry Thoreau was an American writer and poet who lived from 1817 to 1862. He was the author of numerous articles, including On the Duty of Civil Disobedience. From a different era, Martin Luther King, the leader of the civil rights movement in the 1950's and 1960's, wrote his Letter from Birmingham Jail exemplifying his moral purpose for his actions. Both Martin Luther King's Letter from Birmingham Jail and Henry Thoreau's On the Duty of Civil Disobedience were examples of captivating literature because of their broad use of strategies. King strengthened
…show more content…
King starts out polite, therefore keeping the highly respected priests from ignoring his claim. "But since I feel that you are men of genuine good will and that your criticisms are sincerely set forth, I want to try and answer your statement in what I hope will be patient and reasonable terms". King continues being respectful then slowly builds until he is hypocritical. "But despite these notable exceptions, I must honestly reiterate that I have been disappointed with the church". He shows his disappointment in the church for their lack of action to help and support his cause. Thoreau, on the other hand, uses rhetorical questions. "Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once?". Thoreau does not use this because he expects an answer, but because he wants to show the audience how obvious their choice is. Do you fight an unjust law or allow it to continue? To build onto, he states "Why does it not encourage its citizens to put out its faults, and do better than it would have them"(945)? Thoreau uses this question to raise a valid point that to get the audience to ask themselves why isn't this happening. Overall, Kings organization was more effective. If King had not organized his letter the way he did, it is plausible that the priest would have put down his letter and stopped reading. Accordingly, King's claims would never have been considered. Thoreau's rhetorical questions did show the audience how simple their choices were and prove a point, yet it was not as imperative to the effect as Kings
King starts out polite, therefore keeping the highly respected priests from ignoring his claim. "But since I feel that you are men of genuine good will and that your criticisms are sincerely set forth, I want to try and answer your statement in what I hope will be patient and reasonable terms". King continues being respectful then slowly builds until he is hypocritical. "But despite these notable exceptions, I must honestly reiterate that I have been disappointed with the church". He shows his disappointment in the church for their lack of action to help and support his cause. Thoreau, on the other hand, uses rhetorical questions. "Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once?". Thoreau does not use this because he expects an answer, but because he wants to show the audience how obvious their choice is. Do you fight an unjust law or allow it to continue? To build onto, he states "Why does it not encourage its citizens to put out its faults, and do better than it would have them"(945)? Thoreau uses this question to raise a valid point that to get the audience to ask themselves why isn't this happening. Overall, Kings organization was more effective. If King had not organized his letter the way he did, it is plausible that the priest would have put down his letter and stopped reading. Accordingly, King's claims would never have been considered. Thoreau's rhetorical questions did show the audience how simple their choices were and prove a point, yet it was not as imperative to the effect as Kings