Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
This is Ned Brooks, inviting you to MEET THE PRESS.
Our guest today on MEET THE PRESS is Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who led the civil
rights march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama. Dr. King,
who is the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, is president of the Southern Christian Leadership
Conference. He is in San Francisco, where he delivered
a sermon this morning for Bishop Pike at the Grace Cathedral.
Our panel of reporters is in Washington, D.C., and we will have the question now from Lawrence
E. Spivak, permanent member of the MEET THE PRESS
panel.
Dr. King, former President Truman was quoted by the A.P. as saying that the march from
Selma--and this was his word-was "silly" and can't accomplish "a darn thing" except ''to
attract attention." There have been two murders, many beatings
and a federal expenditure for troops of about $300,000.
Would you say that what the march accomplished was worth that cost?
Well, first, I would say that the march was not silly at all. I would think that the march
did more to dramatize the indignities and the
injustices that *** people continue to face in the State of
Alabama and many other sections of the South more than anything else. I think it was the
most powerful and dramatic civil rights protest that has
ever taken place in the South, and I think it well justified the cost that we put in
it. Of course, we are sorry that a death occurred immediately after the march, and I am sure
that all people of goodwill are outraged and in deep sorrow as a result of the death of
Mrs. Liuzzo, but after all, we know in a non-violent movement that there are these possibilities,
and we go on with the faith that unmerited suffering is redemptive.
Dr. King, I think the demonstration was largely to get your voting rights bill through-was
it necessary for that purpose? Aren't you going to get that bill-wouldn't you have gotten
it whether or not you marched?
Well, the demonstration was certainly for the voting rights bill. However, we must recognize
that there are other very tragic conditions existing in the State of Alabama which are
as humiliating, and degrading and as unjust as the denial of the right to vote, namely,
police brutality. We marched on the capital of Alabama to protest the long night
of brutality, the constant murders that continue to take place in that state, for after all,
under the administration of Governor Wallace there have been ten persons
actually killed and murdered, and nothing has been done about it. There have been untold
bombings of homes and churches. Again nothing has been
done about this on the whole. We were marching there to
protest these brutalities, these murders and all of the things that go along with them,
as much as to gain the right to vote, so, it was a twofold march, aimed at trying to
rectify the conditions of Alabama and expose the evils that are deeply engulfed in that
state.
Dr. King, you had your great demonstration, and [former] Governor LeRoy Collins, head
of the Community Relations Service, hoped there would be a ''respite" from demonstrations
in Alabama in order to give the state an opportunity to solve some of the problems, Do you think
there should be a respite in Alabama now?
Well, here again with the *** of Mrs. Luizzo on the night after the march, I can't see
how there can be a respite. This is a state that
continues to deal with human life as if it is nothing. This is a state that continues
to make *** a sort of nice pastime and gives respectability to resistance and
defiance of the law. This is a state that continues to do all of the things that are
contrary to our democratic creed, at least the political power structure of the state.
In the light of this, it seems to me that it will be necessary to continue to demonstrate
until these conditions are removed. We don't believe in
demonstrating for demonstration's sake. We don't have demonstration fever, but we do
feel that as long as the conditions of injustice and man's inhumanity
to man infiltrate that state, it will be necessary to
demonstrate in order to bring these issues to the surface and lay them squarely before
the conscience of the nation.
Then as I understand it, Dr. King, you see an end to demonstrations at the present, either
m Alabama or other sections of the country.
No, I don't. I don't believe in the indiscriminate use of demonstrations, but I think as long
as we have the problems with us, we are going to have demonstrations, and I think in the
immediate, we must face the fact that Alabama has not come
to terms with its conscience. Too many people of goodwill
and I do feel that there are many white people of goodwill and very decent white people in
Alabama, but they have abdicated responsibility to the
Governor and to the Sheriff Clark's and to the Bull Connor's and for this reason we feel
that we have a moral obligation keep these issues before the public, before the
American conscience before the mainstream of our nation, so that somebody will do something
about it. And demonstrations have proved to be the best
way to do this.
Dr. King, would you list for us the barriers remaining which you believe must be
destroyed before you and your followers will stop these demonstrations and give the South
the chance to catch up?
Yes. First, there must be agreement on the part of the political power structure of the
South to guarantee the unhampered right to vote. This
must be done with zeal, and it must be done with good faith.
And this means removing every obstacle including the poll tax. Now there are some states in
the hard core South and other sections of the South that
still have the poll tax in state elections, and we feel that this must be removed. Secondly,
we confront the problem of brutality from sheriffs and from other police
forces, from other law enforcement agents, and we feel that before demonstrations can
cease, something must be done to end this kind of unnecessary
abuse of police power and what we see as outright police
brutality. Third, I would like to say that if our demonstrations
are to stop, there must be some equality in terms of
grappling with the problem of poverty. We have a poverty bill which has been nobly initiated
by the president of our nation and the Congress,
but in the South so often Negroes are denied the opportunity to
be a part of these programs, they are denied the possibility, the opportunity to be a part
of the administration of them, and we feel that if
demonstrations are to stop Negroes must be brought into the very central structure of
the whole poverty program, and then along with that, I think that is a great
necessity to get every local governmental agency to go on record for being in line with
law and order. All of these things are necessary before we can call a halt to demonstrations.
We’ll be back with MEET THE PRESS and more questions from our guest, Dr. Martin
Luther King, Jr. First, this message. Announcer: Now, back to MEET THE PRESS. Please
remember, questions from our panel do not necessarily reflect their own point of view.
Here’s your moderator, Ned Brooks.
Resuming our interview, our guest today on MEET THE PRESS is Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr. who is in San Francisco. On our panel of reporters in Washington, D.C. you’ve
just met Lawrence Spivak. Our other reporters today
are Tom Wicker of the New York Times, James J. Kilpatrick
of the Richmond News Leader, and John Chancellor of NBC News. We’ll continue the questions
now with Mr. Wicker.
Dr. King, you said a moment ago that Alabama was a state that gives respectability to the
resistance and defiance of the law, and you listed an observance of the law by local agencies
in the South as one of the cardinal aims that you were
seeking. Yet on March 9, you led the second march on
Montgomery in violation of a federal injunction not to march. You said that order was unjust
and John Lewis, one of your colleagues, said that “Negroes
had a constitutional right to march, injunction or no
injunction.” Now, was that in keeping with the spirit of non-violence and the restraint
that has always characterized your movement, and could you
explain your reasoning in defying the court order that day?
Well, let me say two things to that, Mr. Wicker. First I did not consider myself defying the
court order that particular day. I consulted with my attorneys before the march, and they
stated that they felt that it was an invalid order and that
it would not be-that I would not be in contempt of court of
violating the court order, if I led the march to the point of having a moral confrontation
with the state troopers at the point where the people were
brutalized on Sunday, so I still don't consider that breaking a
court order or breaking what I consider an unjust law.
On the other hand, I must be honest enough to say that I do feel that there are two types
of laws. One is a just law and one is an unjust law. I think
we all have moral obligations to obey such laws. On the other
hand, I think we have moral obligations to disobey unjust laws because non-cooperation
with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation
with good. I think that the distinction here is that when one
breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, he must do it openly, he must do it
cheerfully he must do it lovingly, he must do it civilly, not uncivilly, and he must
do it with a willingness to accept the penalty. And any man who breaks a law that conscience
tells him is unjust and willingly accepts the penalty by
staying in jail in order to arouse the conscience of the community on the injustice of the law
is at that moment expressing the very highest respect
for law.
I can sympathize with a good deal of that, but it seems to me that you get into a very
difficult point, here, at which one man's conscience is set, in fact, above the conscience
of society, which has invoked the law. How are we to enforce
law when a doctrine is preached that one man's conscience
may tell him that the law is unjust, when other men's consciences don't tell them that?
I think you enforce it, and I think you deal with it by not allowing anarchy to develop.
I do not believe in defying the law, as many of
the segregationists do, I do not believe in evading the law as
many of the segregationists do. The fact is that most of the segregationists and racists
that I see are not willing to suffer enough for their beliefs
in segregation, and they are not willing to go to jail. I think the
chief norm for guiding the situation is the willingness to accept the penalty, and I don't
think any society can call an individual irresponsible who breaks
a law and willingly accepts the penalty if conscience tells
him that that law is unjust, I think that this is a long tradition in our society, it
is a long tradition in Biblical history; Meshach and Abednego broke
an unjust law and they did it because they had to be true to
a higher moral law. The early Christians practiced civil disobedience in a superb manner. Academic
freedom would not be a reality today if it had not been for Socrates and if it had not
been for Socrates' willingness to practice civil disobedience.
And I would say that own history there is nothing that
expresses massive civil disobedience any more than the Boston Tea Party, and yet we give
this to our young people and our students as a part of
the great tradition of our nation. So I think we are in good
company when we break unjust laws, and I think those who are willing to do it and accept
the penalty are those who are part of the saving of the nation.
In drawing your distinctions between just laws and unjust laws, Dr. King, do you
distinguish between statutory laws such as a local ordinance requiring segregation, and
the law that is promulgated by a court in the form of an injunction?
Yes, I do distinguish between these. It does depend, however, Mr. Kilpatrick, on the court
that renders the decision, and it does depend on
the situation. There can be no gainsaying of the fact that many
of the state courts actually misuse and abuse the judicial process. And I would make a distinction
here between the decision that comes from a state
court that is committed to preserving segregation and a
federal court that is committed to bringing the basic and underlying truths of the Constitution
into being. One distinguished jurist has said, "Justice
too long delayed is justice denied," and we have seen courts that
have delayed justice and in the process denied justice. So I would make a distinction, here,
but I think the situation is one that has to be taken under
consideration.
In your book you describe the opinion of the Supreme Court in the school
segregation cases as “just law” if you will recall. Suppose the Supreme Court were
to decide in some particular case against the interests of the
demonstrators, as the court very nearly decided in January in the
*** case. Would you then regard such an opinion of the Supreme Court as unjust law to be disobeyed?
Well that is a rather iffy question, Mr. Kilpatrick. I would have to face it when I come to it
orwhen we face that in our society. I happen to feel that the Supreme Court has made a
decision that it will never reverse. On the other hand, I might
say that one has to understand what I mean by a just law. I think
law is just which squares with the moral law, and I think a law is unjust which is out of
harmony with the moral laws of the universe.
Then the Supreme Court in the past has been unjust, has it not, then, m those cases in
our history where it upheld segregation?
I think there are laws that have come into being that I considered unjust and, I think,
the moral conscience of the nation considered
unjust. This does not mean the persons who rendered the
decision were unjust people or they were evil people. It simply meant that at that particular
time they did not have the foresight to see what, let us
say, back in 1896 Justice Harlan saw. They differed among
themselves. While most of the jurists rendered a decision making "separate but equal" the
law of the land, there was Justice Harlan who said at that
time the Constitution is color-blind and rendered a dissenting
opinion, which has now become the majority opinion of our country.
Dr. King, we have reports from Atlanta which indicate that you will recommend
to the nation's labor unions a nationwide work stoppage to keep the plight of Alabama
Negroes before the country. Now can you give us some details
on this plan?
Yes, Mr. Chancellor. I think the conditions in Alabama have degenerated to such a low
level of social disruption and such a low level
of man's inhumanity to man, that the whole conscience of the
nation must rise up and engage in some kind of creative, firm action program that will
bring the business leaders and the decent people of Alabama to
the point of bringing pressure to bear on Governor Wallace
and other officials who are responsible for this reign of terror.
I left Alabama last week after the march feeling that we had made a great triumph, and we certainly
did in the march, and that maybe we would see a brighter
day all over the State of Alabama. But the fact is,
Governor Wallace refused to see those who had a petition to present, and not long after
that, Mrs. Luizzo was brutally shot down in an automobile on
Highway 80. This is just one other example of something that
we have faced in the State of Alabama for a number of years. Consequently, I think that
it is necessary for the nation to rise up and engage in a massive
economic withdrawal program on the State of Alabama. To
put it another way, I think the time has come for all people of goodwill to join in an economic
boycott of Alabama products. So I am, in a few days,
planning to call on the trade unions to refuse to transport or use
Alabama products. I hope to call on all Americans to refuse to buy Alabama products, and I hope
to call on the Secretary of the Treasury of the United
States to withdraw all federal funds that it has on deposit in
Alabama banks, and finally, I think it is necessary to call on all federal agencies,
in line with the 1964 Civil Rights Bill, to withdraw support from
a society that has refused to protect life and the right to vote.
Dr. King, the columnists Evans and Novak recently charged that the moderate ***
leaders, including you, have feared to point out the degree of communist infiltration in
the civil rights movement. Have communists infiltrated the
movement?
I certainly don't think so, Mr. Spivak, and I would like to vigorously deny that. I have
no evidence for such an accusation. And I might
say that in our bylaws, certainly in SCLC and NAACP, and
CORE, and SNCC and the Urban League and in all the civil rights organizations we make
it clear that communists cannot be in official positions and cannot be in the membership.”
Beyond this, I think I could say that the philosophical undergirdings of
our movement would make communism impossible and would
have Communists on alien territory. For our movement has been based and is still based
on a philosophy of non-violence.
Dr. King, the A.P. reported the other day that a picture of you taken in 1957 at a Tennessee
inter-racial school is being plastered all over Alabama billboards with the caption ''Martin
Luther King at a communist training school" Will you ten
us whether that was a Communist training school and what you
were doing there?
Well, number one I don't think it was a communist training school. In fact, I know it wasn't.
The Highlander Folk School, which was referred to in that particular article, was a school
that pioneered in bringing Negroes and whites together at
a time when it was very unpopular, to train them for leadership
all over the South, and I think they did an able job in doing it. This school was supported
by some of the great Americans such as Eleanor Roosevelt,
Reinhold Niebuhr, Harry Golden, and many others that I
could name, Secondly, the fact is that I never attended the school, as far as training goes.
I was there about one hour back in 1957 or '8. I went to deliver
an address for the 25th Anniversary of the Highlander Folk
School. I got there about 15 minutes before I was to speak. I spoke about 45 minutes,
and then I left immediately after my speech. I think that
is a pretty short period to get any training. Dr. King, your movement has been distinguished
for its non-violent approach, but your people are under great pressures in many cases.
How deeply do you fear the eruption of *** violence in
pursuit of *** rights?
I feel that we will continue to have a nonviolent movement and we will continue to find the
vast majority Of Negroes committed to non-violence, at least as the best tactical approach and
from a pragmatic point of view, is the best strategy
in dealing with the problem of racial injustice. Realism
impels me to admit, however, that when there is justice and the pursuit of justice violence
disappears, and where there is injustice and frustrations,
the potentialities for violence are greater, and I would like to
strongly stress the point that the more we can achieve victories through non-violence,
the more it will be possible to keep the non-violent discipline
at the center of the movement. But the more we find
individuals facing conditions of frustration conditions of disappointment and seething
despair as a result of the slow pace of things and the failure
to change conditions, the more it will be possible for the apostles
of violence to interfere.
I am sorry but I see time our time is up. Thank you very much, Dr. King, for being with
us
on MEET THE PRESS.