of the hundredth anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation as another source of discontent and a spur to action for civil rights activists. Government inaction and continued poverty in an era of plenty, the pride in the achievements of other oppressed peoples abroad, and the unpleasant truth that the promise of freedom inherent in the Emancipation Proclamation had not fully come to pass—all prompted African Americans to take a revolutionary stance in their struggle to end racial discrimination.

Having identified and justified the causes of dissatisfaction, King proceeds to detail the means for carrying out this revolution. Although he praises the strategy of pursuing legal victories that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) had conducted for decades, he argues that this strategy is slow and often results in only token victories. On the other hand, he condemns those who call for violent revolution, claiming that bloodshed will result only in “racial suicide” as whites retaliate with greater violence. King advocates nonviolence as the only alternative to these positions. He marshals several arguments in support of nonviolence as an effective means of achieving a civil rights revolution.

King points to the economic boycotts during the American Revolution and to Mohandas K. Gandhi’s leadership against British colonial rule in India as examples of nonviolence that have proven effective in the past. However, historical evidence does not explain the reasons for the success of nonviolent protest. Nonviolence works because it possesses a moral authority that sheer physical strength and brutality lack. King believes that although Americans retain a frontier mentality that demands response and retribution, they will recognize the superiority of the moral position that those who practice nonviolence hold.

King maintains that nonviolence will be especially effective in securing civil rights for African Americans because it will bring to light the unjust and brutal behaviors practiced by the whites opposed to integration. For centuries, blacks have lived in fear of violence perpetrated at night or in some isolated jail cell. By bringing the beatings into the streets before news cameras and newspaper reporters, nonviolent protesters will gain the support of Americans throughout the nation who are horrified by the atrocities they witness on their televisions.

Nonviolence also brings various benefits to the community and the individual. King claims that a nonviolent “army” is an egalitarian force. Each member of this army, regardless of wealth or social status, faces the same consequences, the same risk of a beating or imprisonment. Thus, nonviolence strengthens bonds within the community. In addition, nonviolence requires a level of courage and self-discipline that contributes to an individual’s self-esteem. Far from being an act of cowardice, as some critics implied, nonviolence demands a brave heart. It serves as a constructive channel for feelings of anger and frustration.

The heart of Why We Can’t Wait is the chapter entitled “Letter from Birmingham City Jail,” which King wrote while incarcerated for violating a court injunction against protesting. Addressing his letter to eight clergymen who had counseled moderation during the crisis in Birmingham, King defends his actions and explains why nonviolent direct action is appropriate. Moderation, King informs his critics, is satisfied with a negative peace. However, the absence of conflict does not signify the presence of justice. King seeks a positive peace, one in which all people receive the respect due them as human beings. The nonviolent protests raise tensions in the community until a sense of crisis prevails, creating situations that at first glance seem distant from peace. Far from being an unfortunate side effect of the protests, crisis is necessary because it creates the need for a solution. Negotiations will ensue, and individuals will seek justice in their society. Thus, rather than replacing the process of legal battles that the NAACP had called for, nonviolent direct action creates the circumstances that allow for that strategy to take place.

In their criticism of King, the eight clergymen had pointed out that King broke the law when he led protesters through the streets of Birmingham. How can he speak of justice, how can he look to the courts and the government for assistance, when he is willing to ignore the law to achieve his goals? King maintains the existence of a moral authority higher than the law of the land; the law of the land can be ignored or even used as a tool by the segregationists opposed to civil rights. While he does explicitly refer to the law of God and cites theologians including Saint Augustine, Saint Thomas Aquinas, and Paul Tillich in his argument, King offers a definition of justice that is also available to nonbelievers. A just law is one that improves the human personality and seeks equality. It is created by all the people. The segregation laws are therefore unjust. They distort and degrade both African Americans and whites. They codify and punish differences, placing one group in society above another. Finally, laws promoting racial discrimination do not express the will of the people, because African Americans have been denied their right to vote. According to King’s concept of justice, the Birmingham law against protesting was intended to thwart justice, not protect it, and therefore must be broken.

However, violating unjust laws must be a public act, and those who engage in civil disobedience must accept the consequences, including imprisonment. By accepting the punishment, the nonviolent protester shows respect for the concept of the law while illustrating the destructiveness of the unjust law. This perspective allows King to regard breaking unjust laws as a moral act. He argues that social injustice demands a response because it endangers justice throughout the entire society. Because King defines “time” as neutral, allowing it to pass without action is inexcusable. To counsel patience, to urge blacks to wait, is to agree to the existence of an intolerable evil, the denial of justice to an oppressed minority. Thus, the title of the work refers not only to the impatience that African Americans feel toward the slow pace of change; it is also the recognition of a moral imperative, the necessity of attacking injustice.

King concludes his work with thoughts regarding the completion of the task at hand. When will the job be finished? Revising the laws in accord with the higher standards of justice that King has outlined is only the first step toward equality. Merely repealing the segregation acts is not enough, because the historical legacy of racism and discrimination will remain as a burden to African Americans. The passage of time has allowed evil to do its work; society must now offer remedies for the damage that has been done. King rejects compensation as atonement; rather, he views it as a corrective that will allow African Americans to assume their rightful place as equals in society, possessing the same opportunities as their fellow citizens. King again offers historical evidence to support his argument, using the GI Bill of Rights and the Marshall Plan as domestic and international examples of the United States’ willingness to assist the disadvantaged. In keeping with his contention that racism has also injured whites, he advocates economic assistance to whites who suffered as racist policies depressed the southern economy.

In closing, King claims that the Civil Rights movement will bring a healing to the United States. King speaks of a sense of unity and brotherhood that will pervade the nation. Perhaps more important in his estimation is the change that nonviolence will bring to people across the globe. The successful use of nonviolence in the United States will prompt others to employ it as a strategy for ending discrimination and abuse. King hopes that a new adherence to the doctrine of nonviolence will bring an end to all violence and lead to an era of peace.

King published six books and several articles during his lifetime. However, his impact on American life stemmed largely from his prominence as a public figure and his powerful oratory. He is remembered more for his speeches—especially the “I Have a Dream” speech that he delivered in August, 1963—than for his writings. The only exception is the “Letter from Birmingham City Jail.” Largely ignored when it was first written, the letter was reprinted in several national magazines after the Birmingham campaign received national attention. Nonetheless, Why We Can’t Wait serves as a useful introduction to King’s thought.