MLK would not have been as successful a civil rights campaigner without the 

threat posed by Malcolm X. To what extent is this true? 

 
The America of the 60’s were a period of time encapsulated by great civil discord, 
such from the polarisation over America’s involvement in Vietnam, the threat of 
communism and the deprecation of American society enacted by the 
counterculture movement. But there was no such discourse that was as noticeable 
and as public then that of the civil rights movement. One where under the leadership 
of Martin Luther King Juniour, was able to achieve a series of monumental civil rights 
accomplishments. However, Martin Luther King (MLK) to an extent would not of have 
been as successful as a civil rights campaigner, had the extremism of Malcolm X not 
posed a significant threat to the American establishment and mainstream society. 
Press coverage of this vocal individual, advocating black separatism and the use of 
violence, served to drive the American public, and the white establishment, towards 
the more moderate aims of Martin Luther King Juniour in fear of the radical 
alternative. Predicated firstly, on X’s transposition of the racial spectrum that shifted 
the middle ground to King. Secondly, in bringing to light the unbeknownst indirect 
discrimination present in the north, and thirdly in bringing to rise the militancy of 
black nationalist groups. 
 
The attitudes of southern whites before the occurrence of the civil rights movement, 
can rightly be summed up by a saying made by William F Buckley, “Idealism is fine, 
but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive”. To place this in the 
context of the civil rights, that is the idealism of blacks who wished to receive the civil 
liberties enjoyed by the rest of the population in the south would be permitted, as 
long as it did not encroach upon the ‘white man’s’ own freedoms. Which was seen as 
an inevitable course by some whites should the south desegregate and thus the 
question was seen by many of them as an, ‘Hobbesian nightmare’. To which the 
democratic nominee for Governor of Alabama, George Wallace had proclaimed, 
“Segregation now, Segregation tomorrow, segregation forever”.  
 
However, the bottled up pressure within the black community that had steadily been 
rising since the introduction of the Jim Crow laws, would culminate into the 
expression of civil disobedience. Which started with the Brown versus the Board of 
Education case. The case spurred hope and concerted the efforts of various groups 
like the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People (NAACP) and 
the Urban League, to achieve civil rights for blacks. The individual that became the 
symbol of these very efforts would be Reverend Martin Luther King Jr, a man who 
made his name before the civil rights period, from his gifted academic abilities, 
having graduated with a bachelor of arts degree in sociology at age 19 and became 
a pastor by age 25. What made him exceptionally notable yet, was the charisma and 
dulciloquence he displayed through his speeches. This, along with his unswerving 
commitment to the principles of nonviolence, was one of the reasons he emerged as 
one of the most influential leaders of the mainstream civil rights movement.  
 
It seemed that King was always destined to be influential. His father, a Republican, 
was one of the most well known Baptist preachers in America, as well as the fact that 
the King family having come from a long lineage of ministry workers. A profession 
that remained the only white collar job opened to blacks before Lincoln’s 
emancipation, and “for the following century” after “it still remained the most 
desirable black path for security and prestidge”(Jules Archer) . This devout Christian 
environment that King grew up in, was a key capacity that had an effect on King’s 
character and his belief in nonviolence. For this christian employment was what gave 
Martin Luther King seniour, the possibility to challenge segregation without fear of 
violent retribution from the white segregationists. To which those events instilled on 
the young King, the empiricism of what he will be and the moral compass he 
acquired. One time being when his father was buying shoes for King and was 
ordered by the store clerk to move to the rear of the store or they would not be 
served. “Martin Snr informed the clerk bluntly that they would either buy shoes where 
they sat, or not at all”(Jules Archer). Then leaving when the clerk was 
uncompromising in his initial stance. King reflected the significance of this moment, 
for it not only taught him the peaceful options available to black people to practice 
when faced with discrimination, but also because it, “revealed to me at a very early 
age that my father had not adjusted to the system”, and to which, “he played a great 
part in shaping my conscience”. 
 
His mother, Alberta, once said to King. “One man can make a difference”. That was 
certainly proven the case, for in the years before X, King had already made a 
significant number of achievements for the civil rights movement. The first being the 
notable Montgomery bus boycott of 1955 with E.D Nixon and Ralph Abernathy. Where 
the three civil rights activists created the Montgomery Improvement Association to 
boycott the segregation policy of the city’s bus companies after the force removal of 
Rosa Parks from her seat. In King’s first significant oratory display, he acclaimed in the 
hall of his church to the packed pews and the four thousand more outside, “We have 
no alternative but protest!”, for, “we have been amazingly patient”. In that same 
speech, King also emphasised his moral philosophy of nonviolence, “in our protest 
there will be no cross burnings, no white person will be taken from his home by a 
hooded Negro mob and brutally murdered”, as, “we will be guided by the highest 
principle of law and order”.  
 
Words which were heeded by blacks and some sympathetic whites that joined the 
association. Such as when, “a furious black crowd gathered, brandishing 
weapons”(Jules Archer), after an attempted assault on MLK’s life with bomb thrown at 
his home. King with his ‘turn the other cheek’ ethos said to his supporters, “love your 
enemies” and reminded them how he wanted “young men and young women who 
are not alive today but who will come into this world”, to take to heart, “that these new 
privileges and opportunities did not come without somebody suffering and 
sacrificing for them”. Although then still viewed with suspicion, King’s character 
gained sympathies from whites and appealed to the christian population, especially 
to the latter, where they would play a crucial role in the creation of the Southern 
Christian League Conference. When the potential race riot was averted and the 
crowd were convinced to go back to their homes. One police officer who was called 
to scene admitted, “if it hadn’t been for that nigger preacher, we’d all be dead”.  
 
In the months after, the association continued their demonstration against 
segregation on buses using peaceful means and in doing so, delivered a wider 
message against the racial discrimination prevalent throughout the south. The bus 
companies who had been losing substantial profits, after most of the seventy five 
percent black customer base continued to travel by walking or other means instead 
of using the bus; Felt the serious economic effect of it and lead to the city invoking a 
1921 ordinance prohibiting, “interference with a business”. Rather than wait to be 
arrested MLK demonstrated once more his nonviolent measure and turned himself in. 
Where he was then charged and sentenced to a fine of $500 or 386 days at hard 
labour, “I was proud of my crime. It was the crime of joining my people in a nonviolent 
protest against injustice”. For the city officials who hoped imprisoning MLK would 
damage the boycott, the effect was adverse to that. As it magnified the issue at 
Montgomery and brought greater attention to the rest of the American public, who 
vocalised their solidarity for the association and applied pressure to the political 
establishment for action. Leading to in May 1956, the federal court ruling bus 
segregation as unconstitutional, resulting in King’s conviction being nullified and the 
desegregation of buses. This victory was later upheld by the supreme court who 
affirmed the lower court’s ruling. In his winning speech, MLK commented, “it wasn’t 
really a victory for fifteen million Negroes in America”, as in actuality, “it was a victory 
for justice in America”. 
 
Montgomery, proved the case that the character of nonviolence was a successful 
strategy in achieving tangible outcomes for blacks, without the need to resort to 
violence. It had also lead to a change in the attitude of mind of Americans where in 
1942, forty six percent expressed disapproval of segregated public transport however 
by 1970, that figure rose to eighty eight percent. His success was greatly recognised 
by the rest of the American public, from black leaders, to conservatives and to 
northern democrats. “His prestidge grew so rapidly that he was called the first black 
hero the nation had had since Frederick Douglass (A Republican)”(Jules Archer).  
 
Following his success at Montgomery, King travelled to India to deepen his 
understanding of the strategies of nonviolent direct action, having said, “ ​India is the 
land where the techniques of nonviolent social change were developed.” It was these 
strategies, King noted, which the movement “used in Montgomery, Alabama and 
elsewhere throughout the American South” to such great effect. This excursion, “to the 
land of gandhi” (A man best remembered as the one responsible for the death of 
civilised India*), had a profound influence on King and would strengthen his 
philosophy that would allow for the successes of the civil rights movement. “I am 
more convinced than ever before” of how the “​method of nonviolent resistance is the 
most potent weapon available to oppressed people in their struggle for justice and 
human dignity”.​ ​The Albany movement of 1961 and the Birmingham campaign later 
was a vindication of the successful application these strategies of nonviolence, and 
proved how the use of violence is no means to achieve equality of civil rights for 
blacks; To which these gandhian principles would allow King to make a success out of 
the extremist nature of Malcolm X. 
 
Nevertheless, the political mountain that King still had to climb was a gargantuan 
one as he still face opposition from staunch segregationists and a lack of support 
from the white moderates, who regarded King’s agenda as too fast paced. That is 
until Malcolm X rose to the prominence of the public eye with his extreme views on 
race relations.  
 
The vision of America proposed by Malcolm X was a radical one, one that advocated 
for separatism between blacks and whites. In his own words, X “proposed black 
nationalism as a political philosophy to make the black man take his destiny into his 
own hands”. Those nationalistic messages to blacks, also encouraged them to be 
separated from the rest of America, as “​once we become separated from the 
jurisdiction of this white nation” then “we can then enter into trade and commerce for 
ourselves with other independent nations. This is the only solution. “ 
The only panacea available to African-Americans he deemed, in order to enjoy the 
civil liberties that were often repudiated to them by the democrat voting whites. Nor 
did X shied away from espousing the use of violence in order to achieve those 
liberties, “I am for violence if non-violence means we keep postponing a solution to 
the black man’s problems just to avoid violence”.  
 
Having grown up in a environment of violence, X, “was aware from earlist childhood of 
the hazards faced by blacks in a white world”(Jules Archer). Only a few weeks before 
he was born, the Ku Klux Klan attacked his home. Thereafter, the family moved to 
Michigan however when at age four, the black legion burned the Little’s house down 
and in his whole life, three of his six uncles were killed by white supremacists. The 
internal organisation of the little family was itself no better. Earl Little would beat his 
second wife when in a bad mood, as well as his eight children. “Malcolm accepted 
violence as part of his childhood”(Jules Archer). 
 
However, like Martin Luther King Jnr, X was heavily influenced by his father, “he never 
forgot his father’s dynamic preaching at Baptist church meetings”(Jules Archer). 
Remembering how he would always adjourn with the words of Marcus Garvey, “Up, 
you mighty race, you can accomplish what you want”. An utterance that Malcolm X 
would take to the most radical and extreme form as apart of his ideology, presented 
to the displeasure of the American public. 
 
Malcolm X was metaphorically wounded, when The New York Times published a poll 
that was conducted by the black population of the city, to which it asked and they 
gave an indication on who was the better leader of the civil rights movement. 
Seventy five percent of those placed their trust in King whilst compared to only six 
percent in favour of X, “at no time in Malcolm X’s life did he achieve a level of 
popularity that approached King’s”(Daniel Cruden). Nonetheless, even absent of 
public support, Malcolm X and his antithesis to the integrationism of MLK played a 
important role in expediting the cause of the civil rights movement, to which he 
himself recognised, “if the white people realise what the alternative is, perhaps they 
are more willing to hear Dr. King”.  
 
In the 60’s, where both the major political parties and the vast majority of the US 
population were conservatively pro-establishment, the words of Malcolm X were 
terrifying. The effect they had on Americans-particularly on the ones who were 
considered to be white moderates-was to force a gradual revocation of their earlier 
stance of King, who they before “categorised as an extremist”(MLK). As ​in light of X’s 
radicalism, the moderate position instead shifted in support of King over this new 
extremist alternative. Some in the establishment recognised the need for 
appeasement to the black community, as they feared if not, then the outcome would 
be a rise in the number of followers who subscribed to X’s philosophy of separatism 
and violence. Such figures like LBJ, who voted against every civil rights proposals for 
blacks in his last twenty years, developed a conciliatory approach to the issue.  
 
MLK was able to exploit this shift in the public’s perception for the gain of the 
nonviolent movement, as he did so in his letter from a Birmingham jail, a letter widely 
publicated by the press and read by millions of Americans. Where King proposed the 
value of pragmatism over the ideologues, that is his centrist moderation as he 
stands, “in the middle of two opposing forces in the Negro community”. One force that 
has “become insensitive to the problems of the masses” and the other being one of, 
“bitterness and hatred”, neither of which according to King, the African-American 
community should emulate. By criticising the extremes of “the ‘do-nothingism’ of the 
complacent” and “the hatred and despair of the black nationalist”, MLK and his 
movement was able to position themselves as the third way. Enabling themselves to 
draw support from across the racial spectrum and held together a ‘broad church’ of 
those who believed in civil rights for blacks however sceptical of the speed in which 
to achieve it, to the ones who shied away from the extremism of Malcolm X. Thus 
garnering greater support and paved the way for MLK’s success in the march to 
Washington, where King attracted 250,000 people and of those an estimated 60,000 
were white. “The idea really was to say to those people in the middle, white folks in the 
middle, you have to come and support this movement”, as “you can’t sit on the fence 
anymore”(Organiser Rachelle Horowitz). 
 
In parts of middle America where the movement and the segregationist pushback 
were seen as extremes and felt unrelatable. Whites at the same time, seventy three 
percent of them, supported the rights for blacks to use restaurants, accommodations 
and parks without discrimination, however a significant many less were actively 
supporting the movement. Malcolm X’s extremist philosophy shifting the middle 
ground to King, which allowed for MLK to reach the level of success he did. To which 
Robert Kennedy recognised this ‘new order’ and pressured his brother JFK to show 
support for Martin. Leading to a racial understanding meeting between MLK and the 
President. Steadily the psyche, “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation 
forever”, began to become one of integration. 
 
The emergence of Malcolm X had also brought to light, the (so called) indirect 
discrimination of the north. Highlighting the de facto segregation present in the 
former union states where the plight of blacks in the ghettos and the conditions in 
which they live under were said to be no better than the legal segregation in the 
south, “anything below the Canadian border is south”(Malcolm X). This favourably 
aided the campaign of Martin Luther King. As when Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam 
started their project of creating black independence and self sufficiency-having 
criticised the freedom riders for ignoring black discrimination in the north-it made the 
white population weary of the intentions of the black nationalist philosophy. Seeing 
the sight of the Nation Of Islam’s 250,000 base members and the many more 
thousand going to the schools that the organisation set up, as well as black 
businesses. The establishment reaction was one of fear, fear of the tangibility of 
black’s separating from the rest of America. As well as the loss of economic power 
that comes should more of the twenty two million blacks be persuaded to join the 
already hundred of thousands of the Nation Of Islam, in their self sufficiency and 
support only black businesses campaign.  
 
Malcolm X who was credited for increasing the membership of the organisation from 
1,200 to 75,000 by the time of his death due to having the same level of oratory skills 
as MLK; contributed more to the success of King when he criticised the Northern 
establishment. ”great fuss over the South only to blind us to what is happening here in 
the North” and accused the democratic party who held the mayoralty of New York 
City of dishonesty, “The Liberal is more deceitful, more hypocritical than the 
Conservative”. This along with the black self sufficiency campaign, served as a factor 
that pushed northern democratic congressmen to help King and an inability to work 
with X. Resulting in the development of the relationship between the civil rights leader 
and the governing party at the time, as well as negating the previous tension 
between the two. King having before been vocally critical of the liberal democrats 
incremental approach to legislating laws that protect the civil liberties of blacks, and 
a contentious relationship with President Kennedy, finding his rhetoric did not come 
to the fruition of action.  
 
This relationship predicated on X’s extremism, furthered King’s successes as a civil 
rights campaigner, and resulted to an increase among those northern congressmen 
in the house to support H.R. 7152. A reversal of the political climate of 1957, in which less 
than 52% northern democrats supported that year’s civil rights act. The result of this 
lead to the passing of the civil rights act of 1964. Where a hundred and forty five out of 
the a hundred and fifty four, democratic house members from the North voted in 
favour of the bill as well as a hundred and thirty eight northern Republicans. The 
relationship MLK had with the establishment also played a key role in serving as a 
springboard for King’s successes elsewhere of the south, such when launching his 
Chicago campaign to end economic segregation. 
 
The increasing number of young black nationalists was evident of the popularity of 
X’s philosophy among that demographic. Some of those were induced to support the 
methodology of X, due to having experienced the same childhood discrimination and 
trauma as the ones inflicted to Malcolm. In his ‘ballot or the bullet’ speech, X publicly 
recognised this new class of blacks; “you’re facing a situation where the young 
Negro’s coming up” and, “they don’t want to hear that ‘turn the other cheek’ stuff”, 
these were teenagers who at Jacksonville were, “throwing molotov cocktails”. The 
increase in these militant black nationalists challenged the establishment, as well as 
segregationists and the mainstream civil rights movement, often employing violent 
means on the two former. 
 
In 1966, a year after X’s death, his philosophy reached its peak among the young 
when the two major student organisation groups-SNCC and CORE-embraced black 
nationalism. Stokely Carmichael who was elected president of Student Nonviolent 
Coordinating Committee in that year, began to radically transform the organisation 
from one that is interracial and nonviolent, to one that is comprised only of blacks 
and committed to black power. “Integration is irrelevant” as “political and economic 
power is what the black people have to have”(Stokely Carmichael). CORE similarly 
endorsed black nationalism and abandoned the nonviolent approach of MLK and his 
the mainstream civil rights movement. The creation of the Black Panthers in october 
who’s combative violence and socialist dogma, called for blacks to, “Unite to 
overthrow their white oppressors”. Brought to a greater extent, the militancy of 
Malcolm X’s philosophy and heightened the tension between whites and blacks, to 
which Martin Luther King can no longer ignore the presence of these groups. 
 
These black extremists who were inspired by Malcolm X and followed his philosophy, 
served to further the success of King as a civil rights campaigner. ​Although, those 
who identified with the separatist and black nationalist philosophy never exceeded 
15% at its height; the vocality of this fringe swung Martin Luther King’s attention to the 
social issues that they rallied on.​ And lead to MLK’s civil liberty struggle for black 
economic equality, when he recognised the ‘injustice’ of the average black man in 
the 60’s making eleven times less money than that of the white man. “​What does it 
profit a man to be able to eat at an integrated lunch counter if he doesn’t have 
enough money to buy a hamburger?”(MLK). This is so that, King started the Chicago 
freedom movement and expanded operation bread basket above the Mason-Dixon 
line. The program aimed to improve housing, education, employment, crime and 
quality of life for blacks in the North, as well as having an effect of curtailing the 
support for the black extremist groups among those in the ghettos and slums. King 
seeing the conditions of the poor black areas of Chicago, saw the need for a second 
march to Washington. This time by, “waves of the nation’s poor and disinherited”. 
In an attempt by King to combat the black extremist groups, MLK used his nonviolent 
methodology to pressure the Government and Real Estate offices to improve the de 
facto segregation conditions of housing. Which had been a focal point of the black 
nationalist groups and one of the factors that resulted in various riots in the past 
years-particularly the Watts riot.  
 
King’s campaign in Chicago and the north brought positive steps creating more 
housing opportunities in the city. As well as leading to the removal of the last form of 
discrimination against blacks, in the form of the 1968 fair housing act, where it 
prohibited unequal treatment of those seeking housing based on colour or any creed. 
Had the philosophy of Malcolm X not have come to being, and influenced the rise of 
these black nationalist groups. Then the success of Martin Luther King as a civil rights 
campaigner in the north, would have certainly taken longer to achieve and possibly 
not have by the time of his death in Memphis. 
 
For two individuals who have in their entire lives only met once and represented 
sharp contrasting philosophies; their discord resulted in fruitful outcomes for the 
millions of blacks in America. Martin Luther King, was shown as a successful and 
effective civil rights campaigner through the major accomplishments of the 
movement. The Montgomery boycott, the Albany movement and the Birmingham 
campaign being evident of that success, as well as King’s abilities to garner support 
from across the spectrum with his nonviolent christian ethos, which were instilled on 
him by his father.  
 
These successes were then furthered by Malcolm X who’s extremism and 
pro-violence philosophy aided in expediting the cause of MLK and allowed him to 
reach the level of success that he did, in the civil rights movement. Malcolm X with his 
philosophy of black nationalism, shifted the middle ground to MLK and allowed for 
King gain support from white moderates who they before characterised as an 
extremist. This support lead to an increase in pressure on the political establishment 
to accelerate the passing of the civil rights act. Furthered when Malcolm X took a 
aggressive stance to the north and drew attention to the de facto segregation 
present there. To which the Nation Islam posed the tangibility of black separatism 
when a significant portion of blacks went to NOI school’s and supported the 
independence of black business. Liberal democrats fearing the possibility of de facto 
black secession, worked with MLK and the mainstream civil rights movement. Finally 
achieving the the 1964 civil rights act, which outlawed discrimination based on the 
colour of one’s skin and the end of racial segregation; civil liberties often seen in the 
past as a chimera. Even after Malcolm X’s death at the hands of his former 
organisation, he still played an important role in expediting King’s civil rights 
campaigns, particularly in the north. Having inspired a generation of young black 
nationalists who ‘lived by the sword’ and gave rise to black militant organisations. 
King, no longer able to ignore this new class of blacks, focused his efforts in improving 
the economic conditions of blacks in the Chicago campaign. Which acted as a 
double edged sword by reducing support for black nationalist groups as well as 
resulting in the removal of the last form of discrimination, through the 1968 civil rights 
act. Although King would have still been a successful civil rights campaigner 
regardless. The threat posed by Malcolm X translated into circumstances that 
favoured MLK, and expedited the causes that would allow for him to be the most 
renowned American civil rights campaigner and leader. 
 
 
References: 
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YR23ss1_n0​ Sic Semper Tyrannis 
 
They had a dream by Jules Archer  
 
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2011/08/26/when_martin_luther_king_was_hated
_and_unpopular.html  
 
https://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10063/3309/thesis.pdf?seq
uence=2  
 
http://www.uky.edu/AS/PoliSci/Peffley/491RacialTolerHandoutTRENDS%20IN%20WHITES(1
0-2-01).htm  
 
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtid=2&psid=3331  
 
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King#Relations_with_Democrats_and_Re
publicans  
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/03/martin-luther-king-50th-
anniversary-