Question

Delineate, or identify and briefly explain, Dr. King's use of concession in paragraphs 5, 10, and 11.

Evaluate Do you think those concessions are effective? Why, or why not?
from letter from Birmingham jail

Answer 1

Note: editions of the Letter sometimes number paragraphs differently. I’ll assume the standard classroom ordering most teachers use; if your text’s paragraphs differ, paste the three paragraphs and I’ll tailor the response to that version.

Paragraph 5 — concession (identify & explain)
- What he concedes: King acknowledges the clergymen’s anxiety about “timing” and their stated preference for orderly, legal channels rather than demonstrations.
- Why he does it: By recognizing their good intentions and their desire for order, he creates common ground and shows he’s not dismissing their concerns out of hand. He then explains why those channels have failed for Black people and why direct action becomes necessary.

Paragraph 10 — concession (identify & explain)
- What he concedes: King admits the legitimacy of wanting negotiation and patience in principle, and he also acknowledges that nonviolent direct action deliberately creates tension — a difficult and uncomfortable tactic.
- Why he does it: He concedes the costs of tension to show he does not take the tactic lightly; that admission allows him to justify the strategy as a carefully chosen, moral instrument to force negotiation when other steps have been exhausted.

Paragraph 11 — concession (identify & explain)
- What he concedes: King concedes that there are laws and authorities worthy of respect and that some legal processes are legitimate; he accepts the basic moral distinction between just and unjust laws rather than rejecting law wholesale.
- Why he does it: By affirming respect for just law in principle, he frames civil disobedience as a moral, discriminating response to unjust law, not as lawlessness. This sharpens his ethical argument and undercuts the charge that he’s simply promoting disorder.

Evaluation — are these concessions effective? Why (or why not)?
- Yes — overall they are highly effective. Concessions build King’s ethos: they show he’s measured, reasonable, and morally reflective rather than purely emotional or vindictive. By acknowledging his opponents’ legitimate concerns (order, patience, the value of law) he reduces the appearance of extremism and makes his subsequent rebuttals harder to dismiss. Concessions also let him reframe the debate (e.g., distinguishing just vs. unjust laws, explaining why negotiation failed), which is rhetorically powerful.
- Potential limits: a concession can sometimes be read as weakening an argument if it’s not followed by a strong rebuttal. King avoids that problem by immediately explaining why the conceded points don’t negate the need for action; that combination (acknowledge + refute/qualify) is what makes his concessions persuasive rather than undermining.

If you want, I can provide short line references or quote the exact sentences from your edition to illustrate each concession more precisely.