Comparative Analysis Of Martin Luther King And George Wallace's Speech
Throughout the 1960’s, society was in a constant uproar due to racial segregation, inequality and the lack of civil liberties for African-Americans in the United States. Civil rights activist, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and ardent segregationist and Alabama Governor, George Wallace, both held strong opposing philosophical views on the aims of law. Governor George Wallace delivered his speech on January14, 1963 during his inaugural address. Dr. King delivered his speech on August 28, 1963 at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C.
Legitimacy of Positive Law vs. Natural Law
Positive law generally involves “enacted law – the codes, statutes, and regulations that are applied and enforced in the courts” (Garner, 2010, p. 1006). In contrast, natural law is a “philosophical system of legal and moral principles purportedly deriving from a universalized conception of human nature or divine justice rather than from legislative or judicial action; moral law embodied in principles of right and wrong”. (Garner, 2010, p. 886) Governor George Wallace was committed to his positivist views and insisted that the law did not necessarily have to be for the common good. This is made evident in his inaugural address in 1963:
Harvard advocates have never examined the logic of its substitution of what it calls 'human rights' for individual rights, for its propaganda play on words has appeal for the unthinking. Its logic is totally natural and irresponsible as it runs the full gamut of human desires. Including the theory that everyone has voting rights without the spiritual responsibility of preserving freedom. (Wallace, 1963, pp. 5-6)
Martin Luther King, Jr., however, was just as equally dedicated to theory of natural law and unlike Wallace, King, just as legal philosopher Thomas Aquinas, saw law only as a guide by which one is “induced to act or restrained from acting” (Murphy, 2007, p. 38). Dr. King believed that the only legitimate laws were those that promoted the common good. King’s beliefs were blatantly clear during the civil rights movement and throughout his quest for equality and the abolition of segregation and discrimination against African-Americans in America.
A Subject’s Duty to Obey the Law
George Wallace and Martin Luther King, Jr., both had surprisingly similar views on the duty to obey law. In fact, both men challenged the law and called for disobedience. However, Wallace’s objective was racial superiority, while King’s was equality.
Wallace found no legitimacy in the federal mandates for integration and in his 1963 inaugural address, he fervently swore to fight against it.
Let us send this message back to Washington. That from this day we are standing up, and the heel of tyranny does not fit the neck of an upright man. That we intend to take the offensive and carry our fight for freedom across the nation, wielding the balance of power we know we possess in the Southland. (Wallace, 1963, p. 2)
Governor Wallace saw only God’s powers as those requiring obedience, and he believed only God had the power to provide freedom. In quoting Thomas Jefferson, Wallace proclaimed, “‘the God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time; no King holds the right of liberty in his hands.’ Nor does any ruler in American government” (Wallace, 1963, p. 7).
Likewise, Dr. King did not believe that the duty to obey law was absolute. King agreed with the Thomas Aquinas’ view that any law in conflict with natural or divine law, is not really a law at all; and therefore, not only was there no moral obligation to obey the law, but also no legal obligation to obey the law. “One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws” (King, 1963b, p. 2). King’s goals and intentions were made evident during his speech on August 28, 1963, “there will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright days of justice emerges” (King, 1963a, p. 2). Importantly though, King called for civil disobedience, “In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. We must not allow our creative protests to degenerate into physical violence” (King, 1963a, p. 3).
Law & the Promotion of the Common Good
The common good, simply defined, is “the interests or benefit of all people in a society or group” (“Common good”, n.d.). “Law is not supposed to be something that benefits some class of persons but, is at best a nuisance and at worst a burden or awful affliction to the rest” (Murphy, 2007, p. 9).
It was clear that George Wallace believed the common good would be best served by continued segregation. “This nation was never meant to be a unit of on but a united of the man”(Wallace, 1963, p. 8) Wallace passionately advocated that the races go about their daily lives, separately:
And so, it was meant in our racial lives each race, within its own framework has the freedom to teach to instruct to develop to ask for and receive deserved help from others of separate racial stations. This is the great freedom of our American founding fathers, but if we amalgamate into the one unit as advocated by the communist philosophers than the enrichment of our lives the freedom for our development is gone forever. We become, therefore, a mongrel unit of one under a single all powerful government and we stand for everything and for nothing. (Wallace, 1963, p. 9)
Governor Wallace held the strong belief that the integration of all races would be detrimental to the white race. “Let us rise to the call of freedom-loving blood that is in us and send our answer to the tyranny that clanks its chains upon the South”, he asserted, “In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny and I say segregation today segregation tomorrow segregation forever” (Wallace, 1963, p. 2)
King, however, believed segregation not only went against the law of the country, but also was in violation of the divine law passed down to man from God. King wanted equality for all men and women, regardless of race. “I have a dream deeply rooted in the American dream. I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up, live out the true meaning of its creed: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal” (King, 1963a, p. 4)
Harm to Others Principle as Justification
The harm to others principle was formulated by philosopher John Stuart Mill. Under the Mill’s theory, “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others” (Murphy, 2007, p. 83)
Wallace genuinely felt that the federal government was causing harm to the white Alabamians:
We find we have replaced faith with fear and although we may give lip service to the Almighty in reality, government has become our god. It is, therefore, a basically ungodly government and its appeal to the pseudo-intellectual and the politician is to change their status from a servant of the people to master of the people to play at being God without faith in God and without the wisdom of God. It is a system that is the very opposite of Christ, for it feeds and encourages everything degenerate and base in our people as it assumes the responsibilities that we ourselves should assume. (Wallace, 1963, p. 5)
Importantly, though, Wallace failed to consider the harm that segregation caused for African-Americans. Dr. King did not hesitate to express the harm, however, when he referenced the Emancipation Proclamation and pointed out that one-hundred years after Abraham Lincoln signed it, “the Negro still is not free. One-hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One-hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty amid a vast ocean of material prosperity” (King, 1963a, p. 1)
The Role of Morality
To some extent, morality can be legislated. Alternatively, though, there are times when it cannot. “What begins as mere law can become habitual and eventually enters into the public morality as required on its own account” (Murphy, 2007, p. 98)
Wallace implicitly communicates his opinion on morality playing a role in law when he expresses his position on segregation and racism and by summoning God’s inclusion in safeguarding the autonomy of the South. Quite conversely, King said, “when the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the Unalienable Rights of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness (King, 1963a, p. 1) By such references, King compels his listeners to ruminate, and consider the very foundation of the American justice system. Philosophers such as Emanuel Kant, Lon Fuller, Thomas Aquinas, who, like Dr. King, supported the natural law theory, would all agree that it is vital for the law, at least in part, to have a moral element. Ronald Dworkin, even with his soft positivism, acknowledged that morality had a part to play in law (Murphy, 2007) Each of these philosophers, to some extent, believed that for a norm to become a legitimate legal norm it must not fail the higher-level test that encompasses a moral element.
Both men’s speeches are evidence of their very strong, and very opposite beliefs. Each of them spurred in their positions. Governor George Wallace remained steadfast on the notion that segregation was a fair and rightful act, while Martin Luther King Jr., vowed to right the wrongs of injustice suffered by the black community. Both Wallace and King delivered powerful speeches that demonstrated opposing views of civil liberties. They both saw society in a different light and held different theories on what the common good was and how it could best be served.
References
- Garner, B. (2010). Black's law dictionary, abridged, 9th. St. Paul: West.
- King, M. L., Jr. (1963). 'I Have a Dream...'. Retrieved from https://www.archives.gov/files/press/exhibits/dream-speech.pdf
- King, M. L., Jr. (1963b). Letter from Birmingham Jail. Retrieved from http://kingencyclopedia.stanford.edu/kingweb/popular_requests/frequentdocs/birmingham.pdf
- Murphy, M. C. (2007). Philosophy of Law: The Fundamentals [VitalSource Bookshelf version]. Retrieved from https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/books/9781118778272
- Wallace, G. (1963). Inaugural address of Governor George. Retrieved from http://digital.archives.alabama.gov/cdm/ref/collection/voices/id/2952
