Letters from Birmingham

Right from the outset of the outset of his persuasive argument, Martin Luther King does a great job of setting up the audience he was arguing against. He also did so in a civil manner, acknowledging the severity of the matter by explaining how answering criticisms was such a rare occurrence for him. Also, he initially makes sound analogies between his crusade and the convictions of others, such as the prophets of the old testament, Jesus Christ and Apostle Paul.

In my opinion, Martin Luther King writes a successful persuasive essay because he employs all of the necessary devices. He literally views his audience as a panel of Jurors, taking into account all of their arguments and criticisms and making adequate rebuttals. In one particular section, he anticipated not only the questions of his direct audience, but of the skeptical Americans he was trying to win over. He utilized "cause and effect" to explain why direct action was necessary and how it pushes non-violent negotiation as a by product.

King also did a good job of referencing scholars and using history as evidence for his position. Although for the most part his analogies were effectual, there was one section where I felt his analogy was not accurate. He likens the possibility of his actions precipitating violence to a robbed man being condemned for having too much wealth, or Jesus being crucified because he chose to be too divine. To me comparisons such as these are way too grand. These comparisons were too much of a stretch. It is perfectly logical to assume that a non-violent demonstration in a completely unstable part of the country could lead to violence. That was my only criticism, however.