11Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and His Letter From the.docx

1
1
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and His Letter From the Birmingham
Jail
Some of the challenges our leaders face today are no different
than the challenges faced by those who came before them. They
are often faced with having to apply appropriate principles to
make important decisions, which in turn, affect the people and
country. Fortunately, we have statesmanship models like Dr.
Martin Luther King Jr, who wisely applied biblical principles
and statesmanship attributes to his actions and decisions and
whom we can look for inspiration and guidance. Dr. King
displayed true statesmanship because his goal was not to get
power or an achievement of greatness, and by turning to biblical
doctrines, he was able to fight for our alienable rights and
remind us who we are as God’s children (Fischer 2012).
Statesmanship Model
As Fischer (2012) noted, statesmanship includes utilizing traits
and skills that are derived from God, believing one was put in
the position to do God’s work, rather than in the position to
merely collect a paycheck. It involves having a covenant
between the leader and the people involved with an issue or
concern. Statesmanship also entails doing everything genuinely
because one believes that no job is too big for him and one has
faith in what he is assigned to do through God (Goeglein 2012).
The leader who practices statesmanship relates to the people
through his personality, charm, and convincing rhetoric. He is
careful not to prize his position of power belonging to him and

use it to seek recognition but instead, relies on his God-granted
talents to serve God through the people (Fischer 2012).
Furthermore, a leader who displays statesmanship
possess certain qualities that distinguish him from other leaders.
He leads well (Fischer 2012), is humble at all times, knows that
he does not know everything and acknowledges that he needs
the help and feedback from the people because it is not about
him, but the people. He also thinks systematically and
holistically (Vaughn 1997), sets realistic goals and has a clear
vision or foresight of what can and needs be achieved for the
country and people. A true statesman also uses his ability to
convince others of his philosophy and for the people to come on
board with him. He is amiable, outgoing, well-spoken,
ambitious (Clark 1921), has integrity, speaks the truth, and
represents the people in everything he does. Moreover, he talks
to people intelligently, potently, has well-reasoned arguments to
motivate and convince the people of what needs to be done
(Fischer 2012), and builds a platform on a foundation of well-
founded, unchanging, vital truths that he believes (“The
Constitutional Convention”) at his very core comprises his
overarching philosophy. In the face of changing times,
opposition and challenges, this foundation remains intact, and
although he may have to change a policy or method of doing
things, he does it only because of the practical strategies to
further his substratum principles in the long run (“Christianity
and Rationalism”).
He is also not led by public opinion polls, but instead, makes
his decisions by following his morals that are rooted in his
belief of what is right or wrong (Goeglein 2012). He sticks to
his beliefs and speaks up and acts against anything that is wrong
or immoral and he does everything to overcome any opposition
when something is right(Meade 1957).
Nonetheless, one of the most important virtues of a leader who
practices statesmanship is prudence. In the Nicomachean Ethics,

Aristotle wrote, “our choice of actions will not be right without
Prudence any more than without Moral Virtue, since, while
Moral Virtue enables us to achieve the end, Prudence makes us
adopt the right means to the end” (Halloway 1999). So applying
prudence, a leader rightly understands his role and does not
reject his principles for convenience (Newell 2012). Instead, he
consistently applies his biblical principles to the circumstances
he faces, just as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. did.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
A Statesman in the Making
The most powerful moment in Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s life
occurred in 1958 in Montgomery, Alabama, where he was a
young preacher with his first parish, and where he was chosen
to lead the protests against racial discrimination. This was a
role that he neither sought after nor was he prepared for since
he had only been since his whole education at that point had
been focused on a scholarly approach to religion so that he
could follow in his father’s footsteps as a senior minister in
Atlanta. However, he did not ignore this new calling, and
although traumatized by his predicament, Dr. King got down on
his knees and prayed for guidance. Praying was Dr. King’s
crucible and this single incident because an indication of the
type of leader he would become. This was the turning point of
his life as he humbly accepted the call to lead the blossoming
civil rights movement. From that point onwards, Dr. King’s
statesmanship qualities of humility, vision, persistence,
optimism, truthfulness, being a well-spoken motivator,
involving everyone in the fight for equality, and applying
biblical principles while fighting against the status quo, (Newell
2012) played a vital role in his leading the country to an
enormous progress toward racial equality in the United States.
A prime example of Dr. King’s excellent statesmanship
qualities is evidenced in his letter from Birmingham Jail.
Events that Led To Dr. King Going To Birmingham Jail
Dr. King had been involved in several movements to fight for
the Civil Rights Movement, and in 1963, he joined the

movement in Birmingham, Alabama, a place that quickly
became known as "the most segregated city in America."
During this time, the Southern Christian Leadership Council
(SCLC) had organized the “Birmingham Campaign,” which was
aimed at bringing attention to, and hopefully, changing the
unequal treatment and segregation that Blacks faced in Alabama
during that time. To add, there had been several reported
racially motivated bombings, and when it came to jobs, the only
jobs that were made available to Blacks were manual labor jobs.
The Birmingham Campaign, however, consisted of peaceful
demonstrations such as extended boycotts by encouraging
customers to not spend money at stores that would not hire or
serve blacks; lunch counter sit-ins which included practicing
how to withstand verbal and physical assaults; and kneel-ins,
also known as pray-ins.
On Good Friday, 1963, Fred Shuttlesworth, Ralph Abernathy
and Dr. King participated in a mass demonstration to support
the Campaign. Although it was a nonviolent march, they were
all arrested and jailed for taking part in what, at the time, was
against local “assembly” laws. Dr. King was held in solitary
confinement, and although he had the option of using funds
from his supporters to post bail, he deliberately chose to stay in
prison to bring attention to the injustice in Birmingham. During
a visit, a friend of Dr. King smuggled King a copy of the local
newspaper, which featured an open letter, “A Call for Unity,”
that was written by eight local clergymen. The letter was
primarily describing Dr. King as an outside agitator who
refused to put a halt to the protests and telling him to leave. To
them, Dr. King's “unwise and untimely” campaign had no place
in Birmingham and went on to praise the “calm nature” of the
city's police department. Instead of becoming agitated and
giving up since he had failed several times, Dr. King decided to
stand up for what he believed and defended his actions by
responding to the article. From his jail cell, first in the margins
and then on smuggled scraps, including toilet paper, and using
his statesmanship attributes, Dr. King boldly began drafting a

response the clergymen’s editorial.
Statesmanship and The Letter from Birmingham Jail
In his “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” Dr. King skillfully used
tact in his opening by establishing ethos when he addressed the
readers by using the phrase “fellow clergyman, Christian
brother.” Displaying his vision and hope for a change, he stated,
“Let us all hope that the dark clouds of racial prejudice will
soon pass away and the deep fog of misunderstanding will be
lifted from our fear-drenched communities, and in some not too
distant tomorrow the radiant stars of love and brotherhood will
shine over our great nation with all their scintillating beauty.”
Almost a thesis statement, Dr. King stated what would follow in
the letter. He set up a peaceful, non-aggressive approach to his
message by remaining humble and ensuring that he did not
offend the readers, and therefore, keeping them reading, rather
than having his letter thrown out. This was important to get his
word out to the people.
To add, Dr. King also used strong rhetorical appeals to convince
the clergymen of the right to his actions, or rather to justify
why the minorities were entitled to equal treatment from the
society. To change the opinion of the clergymen and the public
in general, Dr. King used three strong rhetorical appeals: ethos,
logos, and pathos, something that only a true statesman could
do. The following discussion analyzes the rhetorical appeals
used by Dr. King and their effectiveness in convincing the
audience to adopt and support his disposition regarding civil
rights and racial equality.
First, one of the strongest and most prevalent rhetorical appeals
used by Dr. King in his letter is logos. By definition, logos is
the use of logical arguments and evidence to support one’s
opinion. In his letter, Dr. King used facts that the audience
could relate to and stated relevant examples to back up his case.
For instance, in his letter, Dr. King logically explained the
reasons behind his being in Birmingham: to protest and

consequently end up in jail. He stated that “…Just as the eight–
century prophets left their little villages and carried their ‘thus
saith the Lord’ far beyond the boundaries of their home towns;
and just as the Apostle Paul left his little village of Tarsus and
carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to practically every hamlet
and city of the Greco-Roman world, [he] too [was] compelled to
carry the gospel of the freedom beyond [his] particular
hometown.”
So with a touch of humor, Dr. King compared his decision to
visit Birmingham and organize civil protests with the
evangelistic journey by biblical apostles to preach the word of
God. By this, he was able to set a calm tone and show the
readers that he was not an aggressive person nor a
troublemaker. He was just like them and was just there to do his
diligent duty and fight for what was right for the people. By
using a biblical example, Dr. King also showed that he was
conscious of his audience; he appealed to his readers’ religious
beliefs and knowledge of biblical characters and persuaded them
why he was in Birmingham. He continues by stating that he was
“…here because I was invited, am here because I have
organizational ties…” By including this, Dr. King confidently
and authoritatively justifies the reason as to why he was in
Birmingham as well humbly stating that it was his right to be
there, not by arrogance, but because as a minister, a man of
God, he needed to be there because they needed him in
Birmingham.
Additionally, instead of taking offense of what the clergymen
had stated about his use of demonstrations, he used it as a way
to teach them about why he chose to do it. Just like God loving
teaches his children about things, Dr. King calmly took his time
and explained that he preferred demonstrations and street
marches as opposed to negotiation because it offered a better
approach to finding a solution. While recognizing the power of
negotiation, he explained, it was impossible to negotiate, given
that authorities had chosen to ignore the issue as a whole

(Newell 2012). He also explained that his actions seek “…to
create a crisis and establish such creative tension that a
community that has consistently refused to negotiate [would be]
forced to confront [the] issue.” By bringing this up, he was able
to explain to his readers that the authorities had shunned the
issue and negotiated with him or even attempting to come up
with some resolution. He went on to successfully convince them
that his adopted method, non-violent protests, presented the
next viable approach to the problem. This is because Dr. King
was an intellectual, a man of words (as so aptly shown by his
letter). Dr. King did not feel like he needed to use violence to
be heard, unlike some of his counterparts. He just wanted to
create ‘tension’ in hopes that he would be heard because of that
because, without reason to, the whites would not listen. By
juxtaposing, monolog, and dialogue, he emphasized that his
only desire was to negotiate with the white society and come to
an agreement on how to solve the racial inequality that was
affecting Birmingham at the time.
Throughout his letter, Dr. King was also able to use rhetoric
appeal by convincing his audience through the use of ethos.
Ethos refers to the credibility of the author and whether the
public can trust him or her. Dr. King’s challenge was that the
audience had a misconception about him and his supporters.
They were looked at and believed to societal outsiders who were
only out to create disharmony and chaos. To them, Dr. King
posed a threat to the peaceful continuation of the society, which
they found inconsistent with their definition of equity.
Nonetheless, Dr. King challenged their belief by asserting that
he was the “…president of Southern Christian Leadership
Conference,” which in turn, showed them that contrary to their
faith, he was a man of peace, he was one of their own. By
showing that he was also a religious leader, Dr. King also
showed his audience that he had the authority to challenge their
common belief. He went further to tell his audience that they
shared resources and staff, thus creating a substantial reason for
justifying his actions, not to mention, a challenge to the public

regarding supporting his course.
Furthermore, Dr. King challenged the readers regarding their
belief in his willingness to break the laws. He contended that it
was a legitimate concern and stated: “…we so diligently urge
people to obey the Supreme Court’s decision of 1954 outlawing
segregation in the public schools.” He went on to challenge
them on the circumstances under which one would follow some
laws and break others. He argued that “…one may well
ask…how can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying
others? The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of
laws: just and unjust…” By this, he not only told them that he
supported just laws but also explicitly justified his reason for
disobeying ‘unjust’ laws since was the right of every citizen to
stand up for what they believe. Dr. King also went on to quote
St. Augustine in his disregard for the unjust law, showing tact
that there was a difference between the two but that sometimes,
you have to use discretion and step up to achieve what you
need.
Finally, Dr. King used pathos, an emotional appeal to convince
and get the attention of his audience, in his letter. Throughout
his letter, he mentioned that he often ignored criticism but
argued that since the clergymen were “…men of genuine good
and [their] criticisms are sincerely set forth, [he] would like to
answer [their] statement in what [he] hope will be patient and
reasonable terms.” Besides capturing the attention of his
audience, this statement acted to compliment and recognize the
audience, making them feel important. This also set a friendly
environment through which he could comfortably relay his
thoughts and feelings. Instead of seeing him as an outsider,
because of that declaration, the audience was able to see him as
a friend, one of their own, a man with feelings who was just
defending what he thought was right, thus making them more
open to the content of the letter.
Dr. King eventually addressed the unfair treatment of the

Birmingham Police Department. He used irony to illustrate his
disdain for the "protectors," pathos to intensify the reality of
their "service," and anaphora to install the wrongness of it all.
It was his last attempt at bring to light the dangers of inaction
and to convince the clergymen to reconsider their accolades for
their hometown police department. He wrote, “You warmly
commend the Birmingham police force for keeping 'order' and
'preventing violence.” Dr. King's use of quotation marks is
ironic language and was a direct attack on the idea that the
Birmingham police was serving the people of Birmingham. In
fact, they were the hand and tool of segregationists and King
addressed this fallacy by simply stating that they were not doing
what they were being congratulated for doing (i.e., "keeping
order" and "preventing violence").
Dr. King justified his statements of the police department not
doing their job by providing an explanation why he thought
that. He pointed “...if you had seen its dogs sinking their teeth
into unarmed, nonviolent Negroes... their ugly and inhumane
treatment of Negroes...” By this, Dr. King was successfully able
to paint a vivid picture of a German Shepherd biting into the
flesh of an innocent and arousing in the minds of those who
read the letter, the cruelty of the Birmingham Police
Department. Dr. King continued by stating that the protestors
were unarmed and that the treatment they received was ugly and
inhumane. He added, “...if you were to observe their ugly and
inhumane treatment of Negroes... if you were to watch them
push and curse old Negro women and young Negro girls; if you
were to see them slap and kick old Negro men and young Negro
boys...” His repetitive language was aimed at emphasizing to
the readers just how bad and unjust the Black community was
being regarded and to show the clergymen that they did not
have first-hand knowledge of the situation. This also made the
clergymen and the readers realize that they were not in jail or
on the streets at all time to witness the brutal treatment of Black
people, so they had little leg to stand on and criticize Dr. King.

Conclusion
In conclusion, Dr. King’s experience is a humble demonstration
of just how a real leader ought to react when put in a situation
he cannot control. Instead of turning down the opportunity to
lead others, he embraced it and although he was scared and had
no idea what he was getting himself into, he emdraced the
opportunity relied on God to guide him through it. He saw it his
duty to help the oppressed stand up for what was their right.
Even though he went through many failures, he never gave up
but learned from them. And when put in a situation when he was
incarcerated and talked poorly of in the newspaper, he did not
answer the clergymen with violence nor did he chose to use the
money from his supporters to get out of prison. Instead, he
stayed in prison to make a stand and standing up against
inequality and used the opportunity to reach out to the
clergymen and the audience to humbly teach them, explain to
them why he was there, what was his mission, and to describe in
details what the Blacks were going through. By this, he was
able to be a more active and respected leader and was able to
gain empathy and the attention of others.
Throughout the letter, Dr. King successfully avoided
generalizations and bandwagon appeals. He successfully used
rhetoric appeals to convince the audience of his course and to
justify his actions. By using logos, he was able to instill logic
into the mindset of his readers, ethos allowed him to show
some authority and build his credibility regarding the
information contained in the letter, and by the use of pathos,
emotional appeal, Dr. King was able to successfully capture the
feelings of the audience and instill some sense in them
regarding offering support to the oppressive system, which ran
the society. All in all, by the use of rhetorical appeal, Dr.
King’s was able to make his arguments compelling and was
persuasive in convincing his audience and reaffirming his right

as a member of the society rather than an outsider.
Conclusion
After reading all the things that Dr. King had to endure, it is
impressive that he choose not to retaliate with the same
violence but instead, put his personal issues to the side and
focus on the problems and help his fellow black people. In his
letter, he explained to the clergyman his reasons for choosing a
different route which was to “create a situation, so crisis-packed
that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation.” These
words depict Dr. King’s idealism of not only the civil war
movement but of democracy as well. Perhaps it is because of his
studying theology, his views on America’s political future was
theological. Moreover, Dr. King believed that a democratic
community had to include three characteristics: inclusivity,
interculturality, and non-violent love.
It is believed that Dr. King’s way of thinking was influenced by
the bombing of his Montgomery home, where he was confused
and frightened and saw no other solution but to pray to God. It
was then that he became inspired by multicolored dreams of
democracy. He viewed democracy with the metaphor of
“beloved community” which meant, “every person is sacred,
unique, dignified, and loved by God and thus must be fully and
meaningfully incorporated into the human society.” He also
believed that to achieve democracy, it could only be done
through non-violent love because violence was the death of the
very possibility of freedom. To sum, “A Letter from
Birmingham Jail” is one the best written argumentative pieces
as it is not only full of history but most importantly, the Letter
is a way of us witnessing how Dr. King was able to successfully
approach the issues at the time using statesmanship and how
successful he was in applying it to such a complex problem.
He then explains in detail his process of organizing nonviolent
action. First, the SCLC confirmed that Birmingham had been
practicing institutionalized racism, and then attempted to

negotiate with white business leaders there. When those
negotiations broke down because of promises the white men
broke, the SCLC planned to protest through “direct action.”
Before beginning protests, however, they underwent a period of
“self-purification,” to determine whether they were ready to
work nonviolently, and suffer indignity and arrest. When they
decided they could, they then prepared to protest (171).
However, the SCLC chose to hold out because Birmingham had
impending mayoral elections. Though the notorious racist
Eugene “Bull” Connor was defeated in the election, his
successor, Albert Boutwell, was also a pronounced
segregationist. Therefore, the protests began.
Dr. King understands that the clergymen value negotiation over
protest, but he insists that negotiations cannot happen without
protest, which creates a “crisis” and “tension” that forces
unwilling parties (in this case, the white business owners) to
negotiate in good faith. He admits that words like “tension”
frighten white moderates, but embraces the concepts as
“constructive and nonviolent.” He provides examples that
suggest tension is necessary for humans to grow, and repeats
that the tension created by direct action is necessary in this case
if segregation is to end (171-172).
He next turns to the clergymen criticism that the SCLC action is
“untimely.” After insisting that Albert Boutwell was not
different enough to warrant patience, he launches into an
extended claim that “privileged groups” will always oppose
action that threatens the status quo. They will always consider
attacks on their privilege as “untimely,” especially because
groups have a tendency towards allowing immorality that
individuals might oppose (173).
In particular, the black community has waited long enough. Dr.
King insists that the black man has waited “more than 340

years” for justice, and he then launches into a litany of abuses
that his people have suffered both over time and in his present
day. Amongst these abuses is his experience explaining to his
young daughter why she cannot go to the “public amusement
park” because of her skin color. Because the black man has been
pushed “into the abyss of despair,” Dr. King hopes that the
clergymen will excuse his and his brethren’s impatience (173-
174).
Dr. King then switches gears, noting that the clergymen are
anxious over the black man’s “willingness to break laws.” He
admits that his intention seems paradoxical, since he expects
whites to follow laws that protect equality, while breaking
others.
However, he then distinguishes between just and unjust laws,
insisting that an individual has both a right and a responsibility
to break unjust laws. He defines just laws as those that uphold
human dignity, and unjust laws as those that “degrade human
personality.” Unjust laws, he argues, hurt not only the
oppressed, but also the oppressors, since they are given a false
sense of superiority (175).
He then speaks specifically of segregation, describing it as
unjust. Because it is a law that a majority forces the minority to
follow while exempting itself from it, it is a law worth
breaking. Further, because Alabama’s laws work to prohibit
black citizens from fully participating in democracy, the laws
are particularly unjust and undemocratic. Next, he adds that
some just laws become unjust when they are misused. For
instance, the law prohibiting “parading without a permit,”
which he was arrested for breaking, is a just law that was used
in this case solely to support the injustice of segregation (175-
176).
Dr. King understands that flouting the law with wanton

disregard would lead to “anarchy,” but he insists that he is
willing to accept the penalty for his transgression. This
distinction makes his civil disobedience just. He then provides a
list of allusions that support his claim. To sum up his point on
just and unjust laws, he notes that the laws of Nazi Germany
allowed for Jewish persecution, and that he would have gladly
broken those laws to support the oppressed class had he lived
there (176).
The next topic Dr. King addresses is that of white moderates,
who have greatly disappointed him. He argues that they value
“order” over “justice,” and as a result have made it easier for
the injustice of segregation to persist. He believes that
moderates cannot distinguish between the nonviolent action and
the violence of the oppressors. In particular, he is shocked that
the clergymen would blame the black victims for the violence of
segregation, as he believes they did in their open letter (177).
He further attacks moderates over their demands for patience.
Moderates believe that time will get better if the oppressed
blacks are patient, but Dr. King insists that “time itself is
neutral” and that change only happens when good men take
action (178).
He then addresses the clergymen's claim that SCLC action is
“extreme.” Dr. King describes himself as standing between two
opposing forces for black change. On one hand are the
complacent blacks, who are either too demeaned to believe
change possible or who have some modicum of success that they
are unwilling to sacrifice for true equality. On the other hand
are the more violent factions, exemplified by Elijah Muhammad
and his Black Muslim movement. Dr. King argues that he stands
between these two extremes, offering a path towards nonviolent,
loving protest. He implicitly warns that blacks will turn to the
more violent option if Dr. King’s path is not favored by the
population at large (179).

However, Dr. King goes further and proudly embraces the label
of “extremist.” He argues that it is possible to be a “creative
extremist” and provides a list of unimpeachable figures whom
he considers extremists for positive causes. These include Jesus
and Abraham Lincoln. Dr. King is disappointed that white
moderates cannot distinguish between these types of extremism,
but wonders whether whites can ever truly understand the
disgrace that blacks have suffered in America (180).
He next lists a second disappointment, in the white church.
Though he once expected the Southern church to be one of his
movement’s primary allies, they have time and again either
opposed his cause of remained “silent”, therefore facilitating
injustice. Too many of the white church leaders have seen Civil
Rights as a social movement, irrelevant to their church, but Dr.
King believes this cowardice will eventually make their
churches irrelevant unless they change. Whereas the church
should be a force for change, a challenge to the status quo, it
has become too comfortably a reflection of the prevailing
conditions, a de facto supporter of those in power (181-182).
Though these doubts make him pessimistic, Dr. King has found
some hope in the whites who have joined his mission.
Further, Dr. King finds optimism when reflecting on the history
of blacks in America. They have survived slavery and persisted
towards freedom despite centuries of atrocities, and have in fact
provided the center of American history.
Before closing, Dr. King addresses the clergymen’s
commendation of the Birmingham police, whom they claim were
admirably nonviolent when confronting the protests. Dr. King
implies that the clergymen are ignorant of the abuses the
clergymen used, but also insists that their “discipline,” their
restraint from violence in public, does not make their actions
just. Instead, they use that restraint to perpetuate injustice,

which makes them reprehensible (184).
Dr. King is upset that the clergymen did not see fit to also
commend the brave black people who have fought injustice
nonviolently. Believing that history will ultimately show this
latter group to be the real heroes of the age, he hopes the
clergymen will eventually realize what is actually happening.
Finally, he apologizes for the length and potential overstatement
of his letter, but hopes they will understand the forces that have
led him to such certainty. He signs the letter, “Yours for the
cause of Peace and Brotherhood” (185).
Bibliography
Franklin, John Hope, and Evelyn Brooks Higginbotham. From
slavery to freedom. New
York: Vintage Books, 1969.
Morris, Aldon D. The origins of the civil rights movement.
Simon and Schuster, 1986.
Newell, Terry. Statesmanship, character, and leadership in
America. Springer, 2012.
Wood, Gordon S. "Thomas Jefferson, Equality, and the Creation
of a Civil Society."
Fordham L. Rev. 64 (1995): 2133.

1
10
Statesmanship: Definition, Attributes, Application, and
Comparison
Some of the challenges our leaders face today are no
different than the challenges faced by those who came before
them (Clark 1921). They are often faced with having to apply
appropriate principles to make important decisions, which in
turn, affect the people and country. Fortunately, we have
statesmanship models like George Washington and Patrick
Henry, who wisely applied biblical principles to their actions
and decisions and whom we can look for inspiration and
guidance (Blake 1959). Calvin Coolidge, a statesman, and our
30th President said about real statesmanship, that “there is a
finality that is exceedingly restful…If all men are created equal,
that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is
final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent
of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be
made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their
truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can
proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the
time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no
rule of the people.” Leaders who practice statesmanship always
return to these biblical doctrines to lead people and frankly,
their goal is not an expansion of power or achievement of
greatness, but to remind us who we are as God’s children
(Fischer 2012).
Definition of Statesmanship
Its Meaning
First, the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a “statesman” as
one who is versed in the principles or art of government and a
wise, skillful, and respected political leader (Wolfers 1949).
But as noted in Fischer’s (2012) “Leadership & Statesmanship,”

statesmanship includes utilizing traits and skills that are derived
from God. It involves someone in a leadership position, a
statesman, who loves God and knows that he was put in the
position to do God’s work, rather than in the position to merely
collect a paycheck. Fischer (2012) further stated that
statesmanship could be seen as having a covenant between the
person and the people involved. This is because a leader who
practices statesmanship does everything genuinely because he
believes that no job is too big and has faith in what he or she is
assigned to do through God (Goeglein 2012). He relates to the
people through his personality, charm, and convincing rhetoric
and is careful not to prize his position of power belonging to
him and use it to seek recognition but instead, relies on his
God-granted talents to serve God through the people. This type
of statesman acknowledges that his power is derived from God
and he humbly strives to fulfill his role that God has put out for
him by always applying biblical principles to what he says and
does (Fischer 2012). Essentially, statesmanship entails having a
divinely-sanctioned greater good at the center of what they aim
to achieve through their leadership, rather than having
humanistic purposes (Wolfers 1949). With that said, let’s
discuss some of the qualities of statesmanship.
Attributes of Statesmanship
Qualities of Genuine Statesmanship
A leader who displays statesmanship possess certain
qualities that distinguish him from other leaders. He leads well
(Fischer 2012), is humble at all times, knows that he does not
know everything and acknowledges that he needs the help and
feedback from the people because it is not about him, but the
people. A leader with statesmanship also thinks systematically
and holistically (Vaughn 1997), he sets realistic goals and has a
clear vision, foresight, of what can be achieved for the country
and people and knows exactly how to get there, often using
Bible principles and building consensus with the people. He
uses his ability to convince others of his philosophy and for
them to be on board with him. He is amiable, outgoing, and

well-spoken. He is ambitious, but at the same time, does not
abuse his power or forget his morals and values to get to the top
(Clark 1921). A leadership who practices statesmanship also has
integrity, speaks the truth, and represents the people in
everything he does. Moreover, he speaks to people intelligently,
potently, and has well-reasoned arguments to motivate and
convince the people of what needs to be done (Fischer 2012).
Furthermore, a leader with statesmanship builds a platform
on a foundation of well-founded, unchanging, vital truths that
he believes (“The Constitutional Convention”) at his very core
comprises his overarching philosophy. In the face of changing
times, opposition and challenges, this foundation remains intact,
and although he may have to change a policy or method of
doing things, he does it only because of the practical strategies
to further his substratum principles in the long run
(“Christianity and Rationalism”). To add, he is not led by public
opinion polls, but instead, he makes his decisions by following
his morals that are rooted in his belief is that is right or wrong
(Goeglein 2012). He sticks to his beliefs and says that it is
wrong and does everything in his power to fight against the
wrong. Similarly, when he believes that something is right, he
does everything to overcome any opposition and goes by what
he thinks is the right thing to do (Meade 1957).
Nevertheless, one of the most important virtues of a leader who
practices statesmanship is prudence. In the Nicomachean Ethics,
Aristotle wrote, “our choice of actions will not be right without
Prudence any more than without Moral Virtue, since, while
Moral Virtue enables us to achieve the end, Prudence makes us
adopt the right means to the end” (Halloway 1999). So applying
prudence, he rightly understands his role and does not reject his
principles for convenience (Newell 2012). Instead, he
consistently applies his biblical principles to the circumstances
he faces. Lastly, he is rhetoric as he understands that powerful
rhetoric can articulate, bring forth, and sometimes activate
deeply buried principles. Patrick Henry and George Washington

consistently displayed these qualities (Newell 2009).
Application
Past Political Leaders Who Displayed Statesmanship
From our discussion so far, we can safely say that
statesmanship is measured by the profound and positive impact
that a leader has on his followers as well as the results he
produces. Leaders, like Patrick Henry and George Washington,
consistently displayed statesmanship by their decisions and
actions (Munoz 2003). First, Partick Henry demonstrated
statesmanship because, through his persistence, idealism, and
rhetorics, he fought to bring the greater good of liberty and
democracy to the American colonies. Henry had complete faith
that American Liberty was Divine Will, as he believed that
liberty is an inalienable right that God gave humanity
(Butterfield 1951). Additionally, Henry’s mistrust in absolute
power was based on the biblical principle that we are all
sinners, so man cannot be trusted if given total political
authority. Furthermore, he believed that with God’s law being
above all men, then no law should refute His word, and hence,
no ruler should place himself above the law (“Key Biblical and
Historical Concepts of Government”). Henry also held that
democracy could not thrive in America without the American
people being devout and moral, who at the time, had strong
Puritan roots compared with the humanists and atheists of the
French Revolution (Meade 1957).
Even after his death, Henry displayed statesmanship by leaving
a powerful message for us to remember that we need God to
prosper (Wolfers 1949). Near his last Will, Henry left a small
envelope sealed with wax. On the back of the envelope, he left a
message that he knew would only be read after his death and
when the envelope was found. In his message, he advised that
“prosperity will depend on the Use our people make of the
Blessings which a gracious God hath bestowed on us. If they are
wise, they will be great and happy. If they are of a contrary
Character, they will be miserable. Righteousness alone can exalt

them as a Nation. Reader! whoever thou art, remember this, and
in thy Sphere, practice Virtue thyself, and encourage it in
others” (Butterfield 1951). All in all, Henry was a servant of
God who took his relationship with God seriously and although
he constantly faced criticism and having to make critical
decisions for the country, he never deviated from
acknowledging the need of leaning on biblical principles to
make these decisions. He used his position to help others and
this country succeed and he able to do so effectively because he
kept his heart and mind rooted in Biblical principles rather than
going on his own (Meade 1957).
Like Henry, George Washington set the precedents that define
what it means to be a true statesman. He was a strong, energetic
President who was always aware of the limits on his office; he
deferred to authority when appropriate but aggressively
defended his beliefs when necessary. Washington’s education in
the principles of self-government was deeply rooted in religion
and his reading of the Bible. As Henriques (2008) stated,
“Throughout his public life Washington successfully balanced
public religion with religious liberty and invoked the language
of the Bible in private and in public his whole life. It had a
strong influence on Washington’s mind, and morals, and speech
as a statesman.” Moreover, upon accepting his commission as
Commander of the Continental Army, Washington combined
classical and biblical elements in his address to Congress. He
humbly declared that he had “no lust after power but wish with
as much fervency as any Man upon this wide extended
Continent, for an opportunity of turning the Sword into a
plowshare’ (Lim 2008). Washington also knew that the best
way to establish a good reputation was to practice
statesmanship. “I hope I shall always possess firmness and
virtue enough to maintain (what I consider the most enviable of
all titles) the character of an honest man,” he told Hamilton, “as
well as prove (what I desire to be considered in reality) that I
am” (Lim 2008)

Additionally, we also see evidence of Washington’s
statesmanship when his troops did not have any food, clothing,
and supplies during the bitterly cold winters at Valley Forge
and again at Morristown. He consistently appealed to Congress
to help with the issue. He requested help, tried to persuade
them, and sometimes complained, but yet, he never used threats
or compulsion against them (Munoz 2003). He chose to love
those who did not share his beliefs while still putting all his
faith in God. What's more, Washington was not a glad-handing
president who pandered to the people and tried to win their
affection by presenting himself as a “regular guy.” He believed
that the people wanted to “look up to their president and that a
certain amount of awe toward the office, even in a republic, was
an attribute that contributed to a respectable government,” so he
carried himself as such. Even when the time came for him to
step down as a leader, he did so humbly, returning to “the plow”
at his beloved farm at Mount Vernon (Lim 2008). All in all,
Henry and Washington were humble med who believed in God
and knew that they needed God to be successful in leading the
country. It was their belief that there was a great need for the
moralization of politics (Henriques 2008), which includes, and
requires, the expansion of religious influence in our politics,
rather than going by our man-made rules as some leaders have
done.
Comparison to Pseudo-Statesmanship
Difference Between a Genuine and Pretentious Stateman
Unfortunately, we are often faced with leaders who claim to
practice statesmanship, but by their actions, we know that they
fail to carry themselves as such (Selznick 2009). Instead of
statesmanship, they display attributes of pseudo-statesmanship,
statesmanship that is not genuine; it is done for self-
gratification instead of for the people. It is abusing one's power
instead of using the power as a gift from God to help others,
failing to listen to people, not sharing power, and just viewing
the position as merely a job. It entails doing the bare minimum,

not having a vision (Fischer 2012), not engaging the people in
decisions, having no authority. It is a leader who divides instead
of reunites the people. Pseudo-statesmanship also entails having
hate and discontent instead for displaying hesed, where, despite
not agreeing with the policies, beliefs or decisions, leaders and
followers care for each other (Fischer 2012). It is not being
God-centered, but instead rejecting God’s teachings and putting
faith on man instead of belief in God.
The Bible cautions us against false prophets, pseudo-statesmen,
who charm the public and convince them of the correctness of
immoral actions. It further says that these false prophets “their
own appetites” and “by smooth talk and flattery, they deceive
the minds of naïve people” (Romans 16: 18,19 NIV). Once they
get the people’s attention, they “secretly introduce destructive
heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord” and “exploit you
with fabricated stories” (2 Peter 2: 1,3 NIV). Pseudo-statesmen
“entice people who are just escaping from those who live in
error” and “promise them freedom, while they themselves are
slaves of depravity” (2 Peter 2:18 NIV). The Bible also states
that these false prophets would be around as time will come
when “people will not put up with sound doctrine but instead,
will opt to “suit their own desires and they will gather around
them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears
want to hear” (2 Timothy 4: 3 NIV). We need to heed the
Bible's warning and be able to differentiate between
statesmanship and pseudo-statesmanship, not only when it deals
with our leaders but also when we are put in a leadership
position (Stein 1985).
Summary
All in all, we live in a world that is filled with leaders,
politicians who are power-hungry, who put their worldly,
selfish desires before that of God and give the people what they
want instead of consulting God and doing what his Will
(Goeglein 2012). Despite this, we do have leaders like Patrick
Henry and George Washington who have defied all odds and

have served as role models to teach us what real statesmanship
is. Both enacted change, inspired the people, used their rhetoric
skills (Vaughn 1997), and related to the people to do the Will of
God. They left a lasting public impact on everyone, one that
even future generations can emulate (Stein 1985). Most
importantly, though, these leaders set their vision in doing
God’s Will rather than doing it for their selfish interest, and
they trusted God and allowed him to use them to get through to
the people and generate change for a greater good (Walzer
2015).
Bibliography
"America’s Constitutional Tradition." Liberty University.
Accessed January 30, 2017.
https://learn.liberty.edu/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent
.jsp?course_id=_349389_1&content_id=_15721511_1
Blake, Robert R. "Psychology and the crisis of statesmanship."
American Psychologist 14,
no. 2 (1959): 87.
Butterfield, Lyman H. "Dr. Rush to Governor Henry on the
Declaration of Independence and
the Virginia Constitution." Proceedings of the American
Philosophical Society 95, no. 3 (1951): 250-253.
“Christianity and Rationalism.” Liberty University. Accessed
January 25, 2017.
Clark, Leon Pierce. "Unconscious Motives Underlying the
Personalities of Great Statesmen
and their Relation to Epoch-Making Events (I. A Psychologic
Study of Abraham
Lincoln)." The Psychoanalytic Review (1913-1957) 8 (1921): 1.

Fischer, Kahlib J. PhD. “Leadership and Statesmanship: An
Introduction,” Liberty
University. 2012. Accessed January 30, 2017.
https://learn.liberty.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-15721559-dt-content-
rid-
136291014_1/courses/PPOG504_B02_201720/Leadership%20an
d%20Statesmanship.pdf
Fischer, Kahlib J. PhD. “Covenant and Statesmanship. Liberty
University. 2012.
Goeglein, Tim. “Rhetorical Challenges of Democratic
Statesmanship.” Liberty University.
2012. Accessed on January 39, 2017.
Goeglein, Tim. “The Uncompromising Statesmanship.” Liberty
University. 2012. Accessed
January 28, 2017.
Henriques, Peter R. Realistic Visionary: A Portrait of George
Washington. University of
Virginia Press, 2008.
Holloway, Carson. "Christianity, magnanimity, and
statesmanship." The Review of politics
61, no. 04 (1999): 581-604.
“Key Biblical and Historical Concepts of Government.” Liberty
University. Accessed

January 28, 2017.
https://learn.liberty.edu/courses/1/PPOG504_B02_201720/conte
nt/_15721556_1/index_lms.html
Lim, Elvin T. The anti-intellectual presidency: The decline of
presidential rhetoric from
George Washington to George W. Bush. Oxford University
Press, 2008.
Meade, Robert Douthat. Patrick Henry: Patriot in the Making.
Vol. 1. Philadelphia, 1957.
Muñoz, Vincent Phillip. "George Washington on religious
liberty." The Review of politics 65,
no. 01 (2003): 11-34.
Newell, Terry. Statesmanship, character, and leadership in
America. Springer, 2012.
Newell, Waller R. The soul of a leader: character, conviction,
and ten lessons in political
greatness. Harper Collins, 2009.
Selznick, Philip. Leadership in administration: A sociological
interpretation. Quid Pro
Books, 2011.
Stein, Jay W. "Isaiah and Statesmanship." Journal of Church
and State 27, no. 1 (1985): 83-
97.
“The Constitutional Convention.”Liberty University. Accessed
January 24, 2017.
Vaughan, David J. Give Me Liberty: The Uncompromising

Statesmanship of Patrick Henry.
Cumberland House Publishing, 1997.
Wolfers, Arnold. "Statesmanship and moral choice." World
Politics 1, no. 02 (1949): 175-
195.
Walzer, Michael. Just and unjust wars: A moral argument with
historical illustrations. Basic
Books, 2015.

11Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and His Letter From the.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from moggdede

More from moggdede (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

11Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and His Letter From the.docx